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 all. No strong, policy (or guideline) based case was made to keep any of these. Precedence in similar AFDs is overwhelmingly delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnoldswick Town F.C.[edit]

A non-notable football club, which play below the generally accepted cut off point of Step 6 and have never played at a higher level or in the FA Cup or Vase. For previous consensus on the cut off point, see:

I'm also nominating Burnley United F.C.‎, Coppull United F.C., Euxton Villa F.C., Fleetwood Hesketh F.C.‎, Freckleton F.C.‎, Fulwood Amateurs F.C.‎, Garstang F.C.‎, Haslingden St. Mary's F.C.‎, Poulton Town F.C.‎ and Wyre Villa F.C.‎, all of the same league, for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Scottmsg (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I see no reason why this should be an exception to the established precedent.--Finalnight (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Ged UK (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Sorry but I believe that the "generally accepted cut off point" needs re-assessing. There are a number of clubs in that league which more than meet the notability requirements for articles on wikipedia. Per norm is an easy cop out when there are some well written and sourced articles about clubs that in some instances are being seeimgly selected from that league at random as not all clubs have been nominated. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - which of the articles hereby nominated are "well written and sourced" please? - fchd (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 all nominated articles. If there are more, I recommend tagging them as well. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split into separate AFDs. Some of these deal with well written articles on clubs that are over 100 years old, with lots of references to them in the media. And some deal with a stub of an article about a recent club. It's difficult to have this discussion without discussing each page one by one. Can you please do an AFD for each one. If not prepared to do this, I'm afraid it should be a Keep as at least a couple of these clubs appear to meet notability requirements in their own right. Nfitz (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I won't split it. All of them fail the generally accepted criteria for notability of English football clubs. The fact that they are more than 100 years old is completely irrelevant. The house I used to live in is 600 years old, but that doesn't make it notable. As for being referenced, only one of them has media references (and only to local papers - the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C. (delete) showed that even a reference in a national magazine is not enough to confer notability on clubs at this level). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not unconvinced that Garstang isn't notable after having risen from the bottom of Tier 12 to winning a Tier 11 league in 2 years. And then not pursuing promotion to Tier 10 (Step 6) (which ironically is your somehat arbitrary cut-off). However, clearly some of these clubs have more validity to having a page than others, which is why they must be listed separately as per Wiki standards. Nfitz (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not my "arbitary cut off" - it's a consensus which has been around for a long time (see this WP:FOOTY discussion from March 2007). It even used to be part of WP:CORP, but was unilaterally removed.[1] пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can't use a single discussion in WP:FOOTY as a guideline for wholesale deletion of existing and long-standing articles - particularily when you've the reverse argument to discount WP:FOOTYN when it supports not deleting an article that you want to delete. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are many, many discussions on the topic on WT:FOOTY, but I can't be arsed to go through the archive to find them. I think listing 9 (10 including the one just above) previous discussions with the same result is a pretty clear show of what the consensus is. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - be careful, although the nominator says the cut off point is Step 6, note the AFDs he cites say the cut off point is Step 10. Also note there is no guidance on WP:FOOTY as to what the cut off point is; it seems arbitrary. Neıl 龱 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Step 6 = the 10th level in the overall English football league system (i.e. Premier League, Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two, then Step 1, then Step 2, and so on). There is no such thing as "Step 10", it may have been poor choice of wording by people in the previous AfDs...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thank you for clearing that up - how confusing! Something needs to be added to WP:FOOTY's notability page about this Step 6/Level 10 precedent. Neıl 龱 09:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 3 days after I comment that I think the Garstang page is notable, and given reasons why, no one is yet to comment. I can only conclude that no one disagrees - but I'll repeat in case anyone was confused by my poor choice of using a double negative. Nfitz (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that Garstang F.C. is notable. They may well have gone from the bottom of one division to the top of the one above in two years, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable enough for an article. – PeeJay 23:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in itself, but that they are eligble for promotion to tier 10 (making them apparently notable), but don't wish to pursue does make them notable. However, it would be best if the entire AFD were ended and each club listed separately so that they can be discussed on their own merits. Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but that is absolute bull. There are hundreds of clubs at Step 7 which do not want to pursue promotion because their grounds are not up to scratch - many just play in parks. Not wanting promotion does not make them notable in any way. The AfD should not be split because all the clubs are in exactly the same position, i.e. never played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or vase. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The clubs must be listed separately because the multiple deletion fails the test of "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately." (note the word "could" not "does"). I made this request the same day it went for AFD. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they don't have to be bundled separately. As pointed out repeatedly, the Garstang article cannot stand on its own merits because the subject is identical in notability status to all 10 others. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. (although I admit I am biased as I was the originator of most of these articles). I don't really see why there should be a low level cut-off point as long as the article is informative and about a reputable organisation. Many of these football clubs do not have their own websites, which makes the wikipedia article even more important as it is the primary on-line source for a person to find out basic information.Higherwiki 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, it's a delete all from me. If Wikiepdia is the primary on-line source, that's evidence to me that there's nothing much out there to establish notability. I agree with the general point of Step 7/Level 11 clubs being non-notable by default as well. - fchd (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must confess that Higherwiki's comments seem to not support his case. (though I still think that this must be multiple AFDs given that notability of at least one club is arguable). Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These clubs are at a level where verifiable third party information becomes very sparse indeed, being limited to brief coverage in local press at best. Above, Garstang F.C. is held up as an example of the sources available for this sort of team. Their ground is barely more than a park, even to the extent that a public right of way passes through the middle of the pitch. The sources in their article are limited to the local freesheet, the Garstang Courier, which is the sort of local press where match reports are provided by teams themselves. The club provides a good example of how regular press coverage breaks down at this level. The Preston based Lancashire Evening Post is the major local newspaper in the area (Garstang is a short distance outside Preston). Wesham is another town a similar distance outside Preston, of similar size. Wesham-based Kirkham and Wesham F.C. play in the division above Garstang F.C., North West Counties League Division Two. The LEP has match by match coverage of Kirkham and Wesham, but not Garstang. Adequate sourcing is simply not possible for clubs at that level. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2008 (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.