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 no consensus leaning toward keep so default to keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aylestone Park F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Disputed prod, procedural listing The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It looks like their current league is at Step 7, so doesn't this count them as notable? (I can't find the notability guideline for this - could anyone point me to it?)--Michig (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:FOOTY rule-of-thumb cut-off-point is Step 6 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see any mention of a step cut off at WP:FOOTY. The notability link only seems to apply to players. I'm happy to go along with consensus on notability, but I'd like to know where this is documented. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's written down anywhere but has been established by precedent in many past AfDs such as all these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OK, cheers Chris. Might be an idea for the footy project folks to document this as a guideline to make it easier/quicker to deal with cases such as this.--Michig (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Neutral until we get some documented agreed notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my response in the other, similar, AfD.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I think the players on this team probably aren't notable, but the team seems to be. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Leicestershire Senior League was a de facto Step 6 type league from 1999 to about 2004, when all three Midland Alliance feeders were dropped to Step 7 (The WMRL and Mid Comb since regained official Step 6 status while the LSL didn't). I don't necessarily agree with the fact that "Step 6 = notable" and "Step 7 = non-notable" by default, let alone the fact that a single FA Vase appearance gives notability, but if that is the consensus we are working with, Aylestone Park pass. - fchd (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard Rundle. matt91486 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The argument that the LSL Premier was "de facto" Step 6 is weak and flawed! The KCL and Essex Olympian League are still "de facto" step 6 but that hasnt't stopped any of their member clubs (who havent played at "proper" step 6 before on in the FAC or FAV) having their articles deleted. Sarumio (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But were they ever an official feeder to a league now at Step 5? The LSL was. - fchd (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until a consensus can be reached on the cut off level, I would also suggest the connection with Gary Lineker and Joe Mattock also adds a bit of notability. Skitzo (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard Rundle. GiantSnowman 19:21, 8 October 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.