FC Armătura Zalău: Existing sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV , so fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Football ,  and Romania .  UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the club played in Liga II AdrianCioran 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NTEAM cares not about what ivision th team played in.  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am on the fence on this article too.  I would like to see more sources, is there no Romania wiki page for this club?  Govvy ( talk ) 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The situation is a bit sad.  The club is 100% notable, but User:AdrianCioran can't help but engage in move-warring, and doesn't understand basic Wikipedia policies or the deletion process.  Look at the article history: User:Florin1977 tried to keep it in draft space with the edit summary "do not publish yet".  AdrianCioran edited disruptively.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed.  I'd accept draftify as WP:ATD and that would be community consensus that would enable limited, but escalating, blocks on Adrian.  - UtherSRG (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I support such action.  Weak understanding of how Wikipedia works and hardly any communication - I'm noting a message written in Romanian on his talk page half a year ago, which translates to: "Don't create pages if you don't know how, because the moderators will delete them".  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – Same situation than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CS Auxerre Lugoj .  Svartner ( talk ) 00:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Drafify - as above, not currently notable, but might be in future.  Giant Snowman 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable even though their successful period was pre-internet, can even find recent articles such as [56] .  SportingFlyer T · C 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify : A pretty significant football club with some sourcing and notability, but I'd like to see something better than that with more reliable sourcing.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We shouldn't be in the habit of draftifying notable articles even if the sourcing isn't great.  This already has six sources.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep / Draftify : Notable, even though sources may not be readily available online.  Anonimu ( talk ) 16:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Virtually certain to be notable.  There appear to be nearly 10,000 results on newspaper archive Arcanum .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:23, 17 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep