FC Cluj (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)

Doesn't look notable. Just a local club that existed, for only two years. Sources are all from a data repository, rather than from reliable secondary sources. Super Ψ Dro 18:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Hungary, and Romania. Super Ψ Dro 18:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• question: so how many years does a club needs to exist to be able to exist as an article on Wikipedia? Where does the line gets drawn?

  As for reliable sources I can provide at least 2 more. I will introduce those sources time permitting. VJFlow2018 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being sourced to a mere database is the major concern. The sort of sources needed for an encyclopaedia article are things like Faje 2011 — which is on-point, expert written by an erstwhile anthropologist at Babeș-Bolyai University, in-depth, prose, and full of analysis and history — and does not in fact mention any such football club as this. It demonstrates that the clubs that it does discuss are notable but dint of them having been noted, independently of themselves and by someone who checks facts and aims for accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Faje, Florin (2011). "Football Fandom in Cluj". In Kalb, Don; Halmai, Gábor (eds.). Headlines of Nation, Subtexts of Class: Working Class Populism and the Return of the Repressed in Neoliberal Europe. Berghahn Books. ISBN 9780857452047.
  • The amount of time it existed for is not the primary issue but rather whether there are secondary sources discussing the topic (if there are many, such topics are called WP:NOTABLE). I pointed out the two years because it looks hard that such a football club could achieve much WP:COVERAGE by reliable sources, which would make the club notable. I could be wrong but the article does not currently reflect that. It is the burden of an article's writer to attempt to prove the topic's notability, and the use of general data repositories is not an indication of notability precisely because any data is included in them without criteria. Researchers writing secondary sources would only devote time for important topics. Super Ψ Dro 21:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Right now the article isn't sourced well enough to be kept, and I can't do a historical Romanian/Hungarian source search. I'd prefer if this could be saved, if VJFlow2018 has the ability to access more sources I'd be happy with a draftify. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]