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. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brimsdown F.C.[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no rationale provided. This is a recently formed, low-level team - they compete in the Spartan South Midlands League Division Two, which sits at Level 11 of the English football pyramid. They have not competed in a national cup competition, they do not meet WP:GNG - they are non-notable. Giant Snowman 08:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GS. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. No problem with the article being recreated if they start playing in national cup competitions. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Club is notable for reasons other than playing in National Competitions. As it stands, the club should move up to step 6 next season which qualifies for National Competitions, however, in a Borough with several teams, it has had an impact in providing representation for the Brimsdown area and ground which has a proud history, including David Beckham playing youth football there. The revival of a 'Brimsdown' team has been warmly received by the Leagues in which we compete and those involved in football in and around the region. Most of the teams in our Division have pages on wiki, even teams we have beaten heavily in league competition. I will put up more citations as to the importance of the Brimsdown area being represented again in pyramid football at a time when clubs are folding everywhere - a team has already folded in our division this season and yet they have a wiki page. Brimsdown's resurrection has transformed the Brimsdown clubhouse, as it is now the busiest it has been in years. The impact on non-league football is tangeable and I feel that should be supported. There are many clubs on Wikipedia that folded years ago and provide no relevance to football beyond limited archival reference, whereas Brimsdown FC are expanding at a phenomenal rate, providing a real pathway for players in the community to Non-League/Semi-professional football, with youth teams playing in the highest standard leagues available for the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it may be notable in the future is irrelevant - please see WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 09:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My crystalball failed to predict future notability. jni (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not citing future notability, that was one sentence out of many that you have chosen to focus on. Why not focus on the many sentences that confirm our relevance?

I don't see why so much energy is being put into deleting Brimsdown FC. We are in the pyramid system, we are included on the spartan league wiki page, so why would people interested in reading the Spartan article be denied reading about one of the clubs competing. Brimsdown FC is entirely relevant, current, of interest and notable to those involved in football in the south east. I could list teams on wiki that are no longer relevant, that have folded and not updated their page that would be better candidates for deletion.

I'm not a wiki expert, I'm a football person and I accept I have probably fumbled my way through this process, but for the life of me, I cannot see why you are choosing to pursue deletion so vigorously. Wiki will not be the lesser for the inclusion of a current and relative pyramid club, such as Brimsdown FC. The page has not been written as a free advertising tool - that I would understand. It is information based — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 13:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstyly, by saying "our", I take it you are linked with Brimsdown F.C.? If so, you ideally shouldn't be editing the article. You also need to verify notability, using reliable sources, especially those that cover the club in significant detail - not just passing mentions. Giant Snowman 13:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly appear that the editor is related to the chairman and is also the primary author on their website. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think edits most non-league clubs' wiki page? I don't play or manage at Brimsdown, I play and manage at another team at a higher level and their wiki page is edited by the club secretary. A friend of mine is the secretary at a Ryman Premier league club and he edits his club's wiki page. Who else would do it? Man Utd would have nothing to worry about but there's a lot of clubs under that, that would have no presence on wiki if they were waiting for an independent person to decide to do it. There is nothing contentious, dubious or accusatory on the Brimsdown page that should or could ring any alarm bells - apart from someone who keeps sticky 'delete' for reasons that are best described as opinion-based.

The second part of your point is more constructive and can serve to help improve the page. I have other citations that can be added regarding Brimsdown FC. The Spartan League, like most leagues, is not known for waxing lyrical about clubs, so their website is fact-based - tables, results, location etc, I would not expect the Spartan to do much more than that. The fact that Brimsdown were formed in June and entered the pyramid system immediately shows that the guardians of the Spartan League, Allied Counties, Southern counties & Eastern Junior Alliance who all require notability for entry, and of their members who voted for us as we were entering after the deadline date, all consider Brimsdown to be sufficiently qualified for an FA sanctioned league that generally only admits step 6 and upwards.

Lee Okugbeni (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer for Felix, but in general people closely associated with topics should not be editing articles about them, at least not in any substantial way. When they do, they must take great care to put the interests of Wikipedia above their personal interests. WP:COI applies. In any case, I have opened a discussion about the issue as it relates to football clubs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Possible COI editing. You are welcome to contribute to that discussion, but I would implore you to not just read but study and as much as possible in a short period of time deeply understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy before adding to that discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PRODder, non-notable football team. Definitely Wikipedia:Too soon as noted above. There are other teams in this league with articles, but most have a long legacy and all have played at the first division or higher. I'm not saying I would even keep those articles if they went to AFD, but this club doesn't even rise to their level of notability if the criteria is either a long history or playing at the "first division" in the league. I did make some minor improvements to the page, including adding the league's template at the bottom and adding a relevant category. I also wikilinked this club's entry in the league template, so if this page is deleted that will have to be undone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and shameless Wikiproject advertisement: This article is probably here only because WP:AFC is so backlogged. The original author did try to submit this through AFC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brimsdown FC. Had he allowed this to go through that process, a similar discussion would have happened there rather than here. The backlog at AFC is about 3-4 weeks now. If you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, please consider going to WP:WPAFC to help out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass our generally recognised threshold of playing at step 6 or above, or having appeared in the FA Cup, FA Vase or FA Trophy. Number 5 7 20:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or project-specific notability guideline. None of the article's creator's arguments are rooted in WP policy - the fact that David Beckham once played at this team's ground is particularly irrelevant. Claim that "the club should move up to step 6 next season" is also a pretty bold one to make after four games (and with the club only four places off the bottom of the table). TBH we are probably being too generous allowing articles on teams as far down the pyramid as we are (in my area at the weekend there was a Step 5 match which attracted a paying "crowd" of 8 people!), going even lower would definitely be a bridge too far IMO.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved from the top of the page:
Begin comment moved from top of page

The criteria for inclusion seems to be changing with each contribution. I wouldn't go as far as saying people are making it up as they go along, but I would say that it appears to me that people want to delete the article and are making suggestions to justify doing so. Anyone who has read my responses objectively would not focus solely on David Beckham, my name or new ideas for deleting, but would instead consider some of the valid points I have raised - which none of you have even mentioned, you've just looked to pick holes.

If step 6 is the lower limit then why are there clubs and leagues way below that level on wiki? And it's not to do with longevity as then the step 6 'threshold' would be rendered irrelevant.

The FA Cup competitions provide no guarantee of notability or relevance either. I know clubs that have competed in the FA Cup that are run with the efficiency and professionalism of a Sunday pub team. If Brimsdown had played an FA vase game but lost 8-0, how would that make the club any more notable or relevant? Brimsdown could have gone into another league at step 6 but chose not to - the club would have been as it is now but somehow would have generated this air of notability?

It's not about attendances. Anybody saying a step 5 club should not be included because they had 8 supporters just shows a complete misunderstanding of what Non-League football is, and it's place in the local/borough/regional community, not to mention it's part in the history of football in Europe - and, no, I couldn't explain it to you.

Does a team need to play division one to be included or is that another new idea? Div one yes, Div 2 no? The standard varies across the leagues and it would not be unthinkable or unusual for a div 2 side from one league, to outclass a div 1 club from another league. Div 1 or Div 2 across leagues is no indicator of quality. Very often, club choices of league are more based on geographical/financial issues rather than any footballing reasons. If a club chooses not to go up a level, does that make them less notable or relevant? But, of course, I don't have to explain Non-League football to you guys, do I?

I haven't spent my life on the Internet but I have spent my life in football, so maybe when I've suggested the possibilities of step 6 next season, it may be that I have a little bit more of an idea of what is going on with the club than others and it's nothing to do with where the club is in the league. You didn't mention that Brimsdown have played less games than most of the teams and a win in the next fixture would move the club significantly further on - but we're here to concentrate on the negative, aren't we?

I'm an honest person and have no problem stating my name as I have nothing to hide - that's why it's visible on the website and that's why it's visible here. I have no problem accepting personal responsibility for everything I type or say, so my username is my name. There is no COI as the page merely states facts about the club that can be checked/verified with a click. There's nothing controversial, accusatory or otherwise on the page, which I did state earlier but of course it was ignored in favour of reasons for deletion.

I welcome debate on most issues, but I have not received a fair run out on here at all. The focus has been on deletion and on trying to 'find me out' or support eachother in the negative. I had no idea that this is what goes on behind Wikipedia.

Brimsdown FC have trialled over 300 players in the close-season, and have signed well over 100 between the first team and the youth teams, without spending anything on advertising - and trialists continue to contact the club, almost daily. There is a community interest and a regional interest in the club in football. Anybody going to a Brimsdown FC wiki page is obviously interested in Non-League clubs or is interested in Brimsdown in particular -either of which could be satisfied by the factual, inoffensive Brimsdown FC page. There is a long proud history of non-league football in Brimsdown which sadly ended in 2010 with the loss of Brimsdown Rovers which has been the force behind the support from football people for Brimsdown FC. Having Brimsdown represented again has received a massive positive response and as was said: "it's like seeing an old friend again". It matters and it's an exciting development for football in this region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

end comment moved from top of page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is some level above which clubs are presumed to be notable (until proven otherwise). Below that, they have to demonstate notability in other ways. This would explain why some lower-than-level-6 clubs have articles. As to why level 6 is the appearant cut-off level, I don't know. It's just that a line has to be drawn somewhere between the lowest level amateur league and the highest level professional league, and appearently there is already a consensus to draw the line at or around level-6 of the Pyramid. For an informed discussion on why this level and why not some other level, you might want to ask the good folks at WikiProject Football.

You raise some good points about division 1 and division 2 not being comparable across leagues. Perhaps all of the teams that have only played at division 1 or lower should be evaluated for notability and, if found non-notable, nominated for deletion. Based only on my breif review of the current divsion 2 teams in this league, most have been around long enough that they would likely pass Wikipedia's general notabiliity criteria even fi they did not pass specific notability criteria for organizations.

As far as the team moving up next season, that is analogous to someone who knows a local politician is interested in running for parliament in the next election even though the official announcement hasn't been made yet and writing a Wikipedia article about that person because he is "going to run for parliament." That article would rightfully wind up at articles for deletion as WP:TOOSOON.

If this article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, it will be by meeting its general notability criteria, not any criteria specific to association football clubs. The article as it stands doesn't show this.

It would be best if someone not affiliated with the team or league did some research and improved the article in ways that show regional or better yet national or international interest in this team beyond its mere formalities (i.e. an article in a far-away newspaper about a game involving this team and the paper's home team wouldn't count, but a feature article about this team in that paper would).

An alternative would be for someone like you to do the same thing but propose the changes on the article's talk page. Many of us have that article on our watchlist and we will see your proposed changes on the talk page and will likely edit them in fairly quickly (doing it this way avoids even the appearance of editing with a conflict of interest). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Okugbeni: - please take some advice from an experienced editor. Your posts are overly long and such walls of text are not suitable for AFDs. You need to be consise - please read WP:TLDR. Giant Snowman 08:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the length of my posts. I was unaware of the etiquette. Any help in improving the page would be greatly appreciated. 'National or international interest', like most clubs,is unlikely for us. I'll do more research for web references, but I don't want the page to be deleted in the meantime. I don't see why that should happen, notability is not an exact science

Lee Okugbeni (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS with regards 'step 6' next season, that was never meant to be part of my case for notability, it was more to display that not being a step 6 club was a choice taken by Brimsdown

Lee, you could always request the page is userfied i.e. taken out of the main encyclopedia and put into your subpage (something like User:Lee Okugbeni/Brimsdown F.C. so you can work on improvement. Giant Snowman 10:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and they have never been in a professional league (or even close to being.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professional league? Are you serious? I don't think you've read any of this discussion, have you? If a league is deemed 'notable' enough for inclusion on Wiki, as the Spartan South Midlands is, then the teams that compete in that 'notable' league should qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be taken down and userfied? How would anyone else then help to improve it or contribute - and if they could, why would they, if it was not live? Lee Okugbeni (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not notable - and therefore not suitable for inclusion in the 'live' encyclopedia. As for "would anyone else then help to improve it or contribute" - the only person who has edited this article in its shrt lifespan is you. It is a minor club with little-to-no interest to anyone outside of the club itself. Same goes for my local club, I'm afraid (which I created an article about many years ago, and it was subsequently deleted). Giant Snowman 11:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that I'm a far more experienced editor than you are, Lee, and actually know the notability guidelines rather better than you. WP:NOTINHERITED applies for starters. Also, there is not one person who has !voted to keep at this point, and you've provided no evidence to suggest that they actually are going to move into the sixth tier next year anyway. "Close to being" in a professional league = within a couple of tiers. They're SEVEN tiers from being in a professional league. Also, you responding to every single voter isn't constructive, and is usually frowned upon in AfDs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an experienced wikipedian, nor will I ever be, but to be honest having had this to and fro with experienced people, the only consensus is on deletion. The issues raised: step 6, div one, FA cup, COI, longevity have not held water as there are clubs on here that would not qualify given your criteria - but they're on here. To me it is much simpler: if a league is considered notable enough to be on here then the clubs competing in that notable league should have a right of passage. If they withdraw or are relegated: then they can be deleted. It would save the debate and would prevent people's work from being arbitrarily deleted because they have no friends in here. You say no one has voted in my favour, but out of the millions on wiki only a handful have joined this discussion - hardly democratic . I don't know what region you guys live in but Brimsdown FC's introduction has had an impact in our region. There are more citations to go up but David made some improvements and I don't know how to add to the reflist. Sorry it's another long one. :) ----

If you can identify articles on clubs that have not played at step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup, Vase or Trophy, I will gladly nominate them for deletion. The only exceptions I am aware of is Wallsend Boys Club and Senrab F.C., both of which are youth clubs notable for having produced numerous professional players. Number 5 7 18:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You very rarely get AFDs with more than a handful of participants, so that's no reflection I'm afraid. Other non-notable clubs having articles? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your opinion is that a club deserve an article if it plays in a league notable enough for its own article? Fair enough, but not one shared by the rest of Wikipedia I'm afraid. This is nothing to do with having "friends" or not, it's to do with the fact that the club has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - see WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about deleting existing articles. As i am informed, it is only a handful that join these discussions at any one time, then those who join the discussion are acting as the gatekeepers for wikipedia and so i think it's unfair for me to raise a fair point, only for it to be dismissed as not agreeing with wikipedia, when you ARE wikipedia in this discussion - and it's unfair to slip the chains of your argument by citing wikipedia in the third person. 77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The objections raised all have pages that contradict the argument, whether it be step 6, FA Cup or whatever. Notability as defined by wikipedia is not based on fame or the such like. 77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am an academy scout at a high profile club and I get calls from players, clubs, agents, parents all the time. I use wiki to look up the clubs they've played at and the league they are in (however seemingly obscure someone else may feel they are). I can use other sources but wiki is the only source that has one click movement around the leagues and teams and where they promote to. I'm not the only scout/agent that does that. What a football supporter/statistician/enthusiast/archivist etc may feel irrelevant has a more practical application to someone like me. Brimsdown themselves used wiki when deciding on which leagues were reasonably available to them. the inclusion of Brimsdown FC is part of that because of the league in which they play. 77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete an article I came across while doing my work? The fact that, while not knowing the club, I went on their page in the course of my work justifies their existence.77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that I am the only person interested in the page. Several people have already seen it and commented on a minor error (which I will obviously correct). I have not advertised the page or anything. The page could be better but I was mindful that it should not be an advert for the club and should provide information of interest only. I was even thinking that I should remove the 'Media' section as other clubs do not have that on their page. 77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- — 77.99.152.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Editing from an IP address to try and appear as if you are another editor is severely frowned upon, please don't do it, you are doing nothing but harm to your cause. Giant Snowman 20:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit my IP address and have no intention of disguising my identity, that's why I made several references to my previous statements. It is quite clear that it is still me talking, so why accuse me of trying to pull a fast one? What happened was that I did not realise that I was not logged in until I went to do some minor edits to the Brimsdown page. I even put 4 '~' to sign it. Lee Okugbeni (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALL of the statements above from IP address 77.99.152.24 are from me. There should be no doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman have I not raised some valid points above that may be worthy of response or debate? Instead of accusing me of things I clearly have not done why not address my statements? I am not the bad guy, I just fumbled up a wiki page. I would not know how to disguise my IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 September 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.