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, Nakon 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kilburn Gaels Hurling Club[edit]

Kilburn Gaels Hurling Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed prod. Club plays in "senior ranks of London hurling" according to their website. Not professional team, although clearly a well organised amateur set-up. Dweller (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reference in the article says, "Kilburn Gaels Hurling Club are one of Britain's most successful and currently the only one in the country to field at all grades (from U10s to seniors)." That sounds pretty notable to me. And hurling is an amateur sport in Britain, so the fact that it is not a professional club shouldn't count against it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball is also a non professional sport in Britain. Does that mean that my local baseball club is notable? --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Pirates, London Mets, etc.. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's one of Britain's most successful clubs then yes, why not? The generally accepted notability criterion for English football clubs goes down several levels below the top amateur level, so we should apply equivalent standards for other sports. With your insistence on professionalism being the standard for notability (in your prod and this nomination) I think you're confusing notability standards for individual players with those for clubs. Individual players are usually accepted as notable only if they have played in a professional league, but clubs are generally accepted at lower levels. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right... check my contribs to see what kind of a day I'm having. The statement "one of Britain's most successful and currently the only one in the country to field at all grades (from U10s to seniors)" is fine and dandy, but the claim (one of the reasons I didn't speedy the article) is unsourced and troublesome - at the level they apparently play in, claiming that they're one of the most successful clubs in Britain is difficult to justify. And being the only one to have all age levels is wonderful, but hardly a notability claim. If I establish a tiddlywinks team that beats all comers in my village, winning every competition we enter for five years, I could similarly claim we're the most successful ever. At any rate, none of this matters, except to prevent a speedy (done). I'll be perfectly happy for the article to remain here, no matter how successful or unsuccessful they are, if the article can pass WP:V. Which currently it doesn't. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is sourced - it comes from the reference in the article. We don't require our sources to themselves have references to sources - that way you could go on ad infinitum having sources for sources for sources for sources for... Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever get the feeling you're not on top form? I'm taking myself off-wiki right now. Apologies for sub-par contributions. Will return refreshed in a few days, lol. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article in its current state makes no assertion of notability at all. Sure there's some stuff in the reference (two paras in the might Edgware Times which looks like an advert for the club to me) which refers to some of the individual members of the club and some success at U16 level but there's nothing in the article. Moreover, the article is simply a list of honours, most of which are trivial. Even the senior honours aren't explained, nor linked to. Until there's something worth salvaging, the article should be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 22 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.