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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jönköpings AIF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Defunct sports club which does not seem to meet WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sport of athletics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like it was notable in its day. At worst, merge to Jönköping#Sport 2. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - being defunct is not a reason for non-notability. I agree with Geschichte that this appears to be notable. GiantSnowman 13:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - besides defunct. is part of history of Sweden football. Preserve history is one of goal of Wikipedia. Butzen (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of good sourcing. I see no rationale for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't access the book by Wiger, but it seems to be a 'database' type book with pictures, so it's hard to know how much details the listed pages contain, but the only other non-database secondary source is Nordisk familjebok. reading it it's about 2-3 paragraphs depending on how you define it. 'Plenty' is a stretch. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nordisk Familjebok is also an encyclopedia, so it may be a tertiary source? In that case, there's only a single possibly sigcov secondary source (The Wiger book), as all the others are either databases/listings or primary sources. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sourcing could be a bit better but it does appear to be sourced well enough for inclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 25 January 2025 (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.