Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Hardegger

FC Hardegger

FC Hardegger (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)

Local football club / political movement of questionable notability. I found only one reliable in-depth source, the cited Blick article; all other coverage is not reliable or independent, or pertains to a canceled football tournament rather than to the club as such. Sandstein 15:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Switzerland. Sandstein 15:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Your simultaneous request, mimicing to that of a user who did the same on the French-speaking encyclopedia and who has been reported multiple times for harassment of myself and other contributors-especially women contributors-strikes me as particularly suspicious of this procedure (basically you can't create a page on Switzerland without him wanting to delete it, or a page on a woman or queer person also, although I heard he had overall calmed down in recent times). Whatever your intentions are, I think the page is admissible. The major, national-level sources are the Blick article, which you point out and which is already two years old, and I disagree with your assessment of the others, which are numerous and even older and are basically all the main Swiss national media. They demonstrate that the organization of this event by the club caused a stir within Swiss society and within the Canton of Lausanne, with over two hundred academics, among others, joining the club to support it in this context. This event is inseparable from the club and is, moreover, mentioned in the Blick source. Instead of having a broken page on the event itself, as this will create a stub with low content, I think it's clearly better to centralize it on the main page as I did. I preferred to stay focused on national or international sources, but there is a series of elements from far-left publications that I did not include in my work, as I tried to remain as focused as possible on sources of national-level nature. Furthermore, the encyclopedic relevance of this page is clear and aligns with the dynamic officially intended (at least in public statements because of course this person isn't banned) by Wikimedia to document and give more space to topics related to gender dynamics, feminism, and dissident social movements, all of which are stated goals of the soon to be held Wikimania conference. It is obvious that a far-left, LGBTQIA+, feminist, and anarchist club will not have the same media coverage or sport importance as Real Madrid, but I believe that it's far fetched to see a local club with 4 years of existence and already at least 5 national level sources speaking about it and discussing the influence of their events on Swissh society and Swiss politics and assume this is deletable and would be better for the encyclopedia. I didn't glaze it, I attributed the claims to the sources making them, I stayed focused on the sources, I spent let's say minimum 2 hours of my time doing it (which is not big but also not nothing), I know nobody from this club and read about it recently before researching in Europresse and other stuff to see if I could write the page, I know 0 anarchist from Lausanne and I personnaly don't have links of any nature with this club except maybe of course being ideologicaly aligned. (A)mically,

Aristoxène (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, I believe that the encyclopedic relevance is interesting for the football project in the sense that it also documents the European ultra counterculture at the beginning of the 21st century. This counterculture, especially for the far-left and far-right, often organizes around local clubs with little athletic or sporting significance (they do not play in high-tier leagues) but holds major importance in terms of membership and symbolism for local clubs. I am thinking in particular of Ménil FC for another anarchist/autonomous club of the same level/nature and which plays in French D3, so basically 12 leagues under the Ligue 1. Aristoxène (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – Per WP:MILL, just a local club with no sporting significance. Svartner (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep Delete, but I disagree with most of the rationale provided by all parties above. This is ultimately a question about sourcing. I feel the above discussion is getting a little off-track policy-wise, so I'm going to address each previous argument:

  - @Svartner: WP:MILL does not apply here, as the cited sources are non-local and independent of the subject and include widely-read, national outlets.

  - @Aristoxène: The behavior of the nominator, the perspective of the Wikimedia foundation on the subject article, and the emerging situation on the ground in Lausanne/Europe re: political counterculture is not relevant to whether this article should exist; none of these things impact the source quality or depth, which is what we are meant to discuss here. It's a reach to say that "5 national sources are talking about the club" when some of these articles are directly paraphrasing each other (Le Temps is just paraphrasing Le Courier) and as the nom noted, a lot of the focus is on the tournament cancellation in those sources which may not satisfy WP:SIGCOV.

  - @Sandstein: I don't think it's accurate to characterize the non-national paper sources as not being reliable or independent, as a source being ideologically aligned with the club does not inherently affect these qualities (i.e. the Dialectik Football articles). Just because an article is not an in-depth profile of the club and only the club does not mean it can't provide SIGCOV.

• I think this just barely passes notability on the coverage available right now, per my arguments above. If this does get deleted however, it could be just WP:TOOSOON and someone should remake the article in the future. RaisedArizona (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  It should also be noted that members of the Geneva parliament (not the Lausanne one) mentioned other elements related to the club, in this case, the 2024 'Apartheid Free Zone', to ask the Swiss Council of State whether the club and the other participants in the initiative should be banned, which again shows that the club is noted as being part of larger dynamics within Switzerland and not just local.(1) Aristoxène (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  And sorry for my reaction, I just felt it was a cool club and was somewhat acceptable, you know I see books being created here without any source and TV shows where 99% of the page is unsourced or totally OR, myself I like to create pages on anarchism and to be fair I was always very inclusivist, even before doing pages on anarchism, but it's a specific view on human culture and what deserves to be recorded, also, I think. In any case, no problem for the decision that will be taken, wether deleting or keeping it. I had a big crisis last month after which I decided to leave WP and if I didn't manage to do so, I think I'm less dramatic and attached to it nowadays, like I mean I thought that WP was never gonna end and would end up covering as much subjects as posible, and that it was the definite future of knowledge. So no worries about everything and good discussion, but I still think it's acceptable, but nw. Bye and have a nice one. Aristoxène (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @RaisedArizona, dialectik-football.info is a self-published (and anonymous) political blog (see their "About us" page), and therefore not a reliable source per WP:SPS. solidarites.ch ist the website of a local political movement, therefore also a SPS. As to the reliable media articles the article cites, they cover the canceled foodball tournament, not the club. Sandstein 15:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, I'd missed that wrinkle, you're right. The sources are indeed independent but not reliable per cited guideline - there are nominally different authors, but I believe those are just screen names and it's unclear what the writer/publisher relationship there is. Unfortunately that was the load-bearing card in the house, as it were - switching my position to delete, as there's just not enough good sources. @Sandstein Thanks for the policy clarification. RaisedArizona (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - I think there's just enough decent coverage to give notability. GiantSnowman 18:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  @GiantSnowman, in which reliable sources? Sandstein 07:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  What's wrong with the Blick profile? GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  It‘s the only reliable source about the club. Notability requires coverage in multiple reliable sources. Sandstein 03:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but combined with the other coverage, I think it's enough. GiantSnowman 12:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I could not find any more sources on Swissdox or in other Swiss media, and there were no hits on E-Periodica. With the Blick source being the only one satisfying the criteria for significant coverage in a secondary reliable source, this team falls short of the general sports notability guidelines. I empathize with the dedication and interest which Aristoxène has put forward with this article. If more coverage pops up in the future, then this article can always be undeleted and expanded. YuniToumei (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - think it just about gets over the line.

Wikociewie (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I also think it's over the line. If nothing else, the coverage of the canceled tournament in Blick, 20 minutes, Watson, and Le Canard Huppé is probably enough for an article on that to pass GNG. FC Hardegger would be covered in background for that, for sure. I think a move to bring that about would be a bit big-endian/little-endian, though. lethargilistic (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  If the tournament, but not the football club is notable, then there should be an article about that and not the club, notability is not inherited. However, then WP:NEVENT applies, and I don't see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The articles about the match in Blick, 20 minutes, and Watson are all from the same news cycle immediately after the tournament cancellation in late October 2023, and it hasn't been demonstrated that there is any WP:LASTING effect from that tournament. Le Canard Huppé is a student newspaper and does not contribute to notability per WP:RSSM. They self-describe as being produced by "amateurice·x·s de journalisme". YuniToumei (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the keep votes are assertive and counter to policy. What I see is that there is a single source and keep arguments on scraping through are not offering the mandatory second source. So I'm going to relist to give the keep side an opportunity to address the second source requirement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Club has various sources from national and regional portals. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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.