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. postdlf (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlético Pucallpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

PROD was contested. Reason: may be notable.

This club is fairly young. It was founded in 2008 and started competing in its local district league which is how all newly-found Peruvian clubs start. Since its foundation it has played at an amateur level. Only when achieving promotion to the first division (by winning the Copa Perú) does a club become professional. This club has not achieved this. Only record of participation is in 2010. Page has no updates on latest season and may be inactive. Claimed official website is a blog that has not been updated since 2011 [1]. Club's activities are not covered in other sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The Copa Perú is not a domestic cup like the FA Cup. It is purely a tournament for promotion to the first division, so participation in this competition does not guarantee notability. MicroX (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Professional status is not a requirement for notability of a football club. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while Phil Bridger is 100% correct in saying a football club does not need to be professional to be considered notable, a club does have to meet WP:GNG and there is no evidence that this club does. GiantSnowman 08:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per GS. My understanding for amateur clubs is that they essentially have to be playing in the top flight of national competition in order to be assumed notable. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails both WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2013 (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.