The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this compilation is original research. Sandstein 20:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A trivial intersection of characteristics which might be interesting on a fan-oriented site but is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The article itself is inevitably based on original research, reflecting the unsuitability.of arbitrary categorization.
To clarify, even if every "fact" was cited, it still wouldn't indicate the importance/notability of the intersection presented.ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fascinating topic on the legacy of British colonialism and the global dissemination of English language and culture in sports. As far as I can tell the context for the article is established in the first reference and then expounded on in the second. I see no basis for the assertion that the article is based on a foundation of original research and so can't find a basis in policy for deletion. GraniteSand (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read both the article and the policies detailed in WP:OR. You will then notice the absolute lack of reliable sources detailing the "legacy of British colonialism and the global dissemination of English language and culture in sports". If you then click on the articles for the clubs listed, you'll discover that many of them have absolutely no details as to where their names originate. Therefore, the "facts" detailed in this article are either original research (if true) or utter bullshit (if untrue). As for the article being fascinating, well, I did say it might be interesting on a fan site. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you then click on the articles for the clubs listed, you'll discover that many of them have absolutely no details as to where their names originate. But the article makes no claim about the origin of most of the names. I'm a little confused as to whether you're challenging this article on grounds of original research, or of notability. Could you clarify? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both the article and our policy on OR and suggesting that I haven't, without any indication of what it is in said policy I'm running afoul, is condescending and not particularity constructive. You asserted that the subject of the article was arbitrary and OR, which is demonstrably not true as indicated by the provided reliable sources. As for the entries on the list, we have a simple policy that unsourced information be provided with a reference if the passage in question could reasonably be brought into question. That these are football clubs and that these football clubs have partially or entirely English names strikes me as noncontroversial and entirely self-evident. Unless you disagree? Without those two points of contention being validated there is nothing about this article that qualifies it for deletion under our criteria. GraniteSand (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to be the only person why considers the article to be OR so I'll have to presume that my interpretation of the policy is somewhat accurate. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the list is original research. GraniteSand is right that the introduction proposes a valid topic, but the contents of the actual list are pure WP:OR. I'd support a properly referenced article on the topic of English names and terms used in football, but not this list. Pburka (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I fail to see how this list is original research. Are you claiming that it "combine[s] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? If so, what is that conclusion? Grover cleveland (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources to even support the simple claim that the names in the list are English? Pburka (talk)
Delete I agree that this is a list of dubious notability – as Suriel succinctly says, much better suited to a fan-site than an encyclopedia. Aspirex (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clearly not non-notable, as established by the fact that the topic is discussed by reliable sources properly provided in the article and there has been no assertion put forth that it fails any specific notability guideline. I'd also say that your follow-on point is entirely subjective and has nothing to do with he criteria for deletion. I, for example, have absolutely no interest in football clubs but still found the article to be interesting for historical and cultural reasons. I'd never search this information out on a "fan site" because I'd never be on a soccer fan site. GraniteSand (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There is no indication that the topic is discussed in depth in the 9 sources provided (which is a paltry number for the amount of clubs listed). So some clubs have English words in their name - so what? That is a question that would need to be answered repeatedly by reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as clear OR. Giant Snowman 13:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It is rather interesting, but it appears to fail Wikipedia:No original research. IJA (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain precisely why? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very Sad to have to say Delete This is the most interesting article I have read this month (at least) but it does run afoul of WP's "no original research" policy. Whenever (which is often) someone puts together a list to point out an interesting trend, tendancy, whatever that is original research. I'm sure WP has articles on the world-wide influence of the English language. If someone had published, in a "reliable secondary source", an article specifically on the sub-topic of sports team names then there could be an article English language influence on world sports team names (or something like that.) Until them the topic is not considered notable and is probably not important enough to be included in the general articles on the English language. But still very interesting. Thanks. Sorry. Borock (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly an own research. – Michael (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request to whose who are claiming that this article is Original Research, can you please explain precisely why it is Original Research? Would it still be Original Research if we added reliable references for every single entry in the list attesting to the club's name and the fact that the name contains English elements? (which I am willing to do, but I don't really want to put the effort in if you're going to delete the article anyway). This article does not, as far as I can see, violate policy by "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". What other policy would it violate? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the Original Research comes in where you are the one saying whether a club qualifies for this list, rather than citing a source that discusses a club's english name (despite being in a non anglophone country). If you can pare down this list to only the few entries for which a source does exist to discuss the english name, you'd probably be OK. I see that you have userfied the article, so this can probably be deleted now - but keep at it! Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal I understand some of the concern about this article is that some of the entries of the list are not referenced to have English names. If you can give me a few days, I am willing to add an RS for each club attesting that its name is English, and to delete any entries that I can't find an RS for. However, I'm concerned that the article may still be deleted for other reasons I don't fully understand. Can anyone comment on this proposal? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would still ask the question - why is it of any consequence that some clubs have elements of the English language in their names?
Maybe some of them just thought English words sounded cool. Maybe some wanted to emulate the success of British clubs. Maybe some of them had expats associated with the management of the club. Maybe some of them just made spelling errors.
A (referenced) list of football clubs founded by British expatriates would be much easier to justify. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very interesting article and would agree with Borock's comments above that an article on the influence of the English language on football club names around the worl could well show significant coverage to satisfy GNG. However, in its current state, there are clear WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issues.

Firstly, the almost complete lack of sourcing is a major worry. For example, as the article states, there is a club called Santiago Wanderers, but the assertion that the club is named after Wanderers F.C. is not supported by a source and the wording of the article indicated the assertion is doubtful anyway.
Secondly, the assumption that the word "sport" is English is not correct. It is a word shared by a number of languages and so that entire section is incorrect. The same error is made in assuming "football" is an inherently English word. It may have originated in England but is now so absorbed by other languages that it cannot be asserted as purely English in this context. The article as well indicates that many spellings (such as Fotball or foot-ball) are used by foreign clubs. These are inherently not the same as the English word football.
Thirdly, the whole section on "Racing" clubs is probably incorrect. While Racing Club de France Colombes 92 may well have adopted an English word, once they had done so, it became a French word (as so many words in French have been borrowed from English). A lot of the other clubs, rather than borrow a word from English in this instance have borrowed the word from a French club and therefore a French word.
Fourthly, there are numerous other individual errors. For example: Genoa C.F.C. was an English only club when it was founded, it is therefore not notable that it is a club from Italy with an English name as that is what would be expected. The same is true of Newell's Old Boys, an English school would naturally have an English name for its sport clubs.

Like I said, an interesting idea, certainly looks like potential scope for a prose based article on English in football, but as a list there are too many errors and assumptions and far, far too few references for this to be considered encyclopedic. Fenix down (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.