Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Crewe

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. Aoidh (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Crewe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Afaict, fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. They exist, and had a little media coverage for a witty thing they did, but WP:TOOSOON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Kingdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about an interview on Sky Sports? Where do I submit this? I am honestly appalled at the determination at this community to pull everyone and anything down who even wants to make a progression in life. CreweNufan (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have been here for 1 day, trying to learn how this website works. Trying really hard to learn and it feels like it is a closed club where any error and we are chucked off. All we ask for is a bit of help. We have managed to obtain 1300 members from across the globe, signed a high level manager etc, this seems easy compared to just trying to get a wikipedia page. I have asked so many times for help. CreweNufan (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:N, for a start. That the club exists is not enough. If you can't provide the sources demanded at WP:N, there will be no WP-article. www.nufan.co.uk doesn't help, or other WP:ABOUTSELF sources. YES, it's quite difficult to make a WP-article without any previous WP-experience, and sometimes impossible because WP:N. So it is better to get some WP-experience first, then maybe try to make an article.

Wikipedia is not interested in what the club wants to say about itself, that is what their websites and social media are for. WP wants to now what, say, The Guardian says about it.

This discussion will be open for several days (probably at least a week or so), and consensus will be what it will be. What can save the article are good, independent WP:RS. If there are no more to be found atm, no article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CreweNufan - I've had a lot of articles deleted here, so I've had my share of issues with the website as well. I don't agree with many of the rules and there's a lot of rules here that I'd like to see change. Basically to have an article here, the subject has to have a couple of independent sources where they are the main topic to prove notability.The football section also has some other guidelines that can help determine notability - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability, which unfortunately, Crewe doesn't meet right now due to not being in the FA Cup for example. The Ronaldo thing was kind of clever, but there's also another rule that prevents articles where the subject is only famous for one thing (and the Ronaldo thing would be that) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. Additionally, the website also has rules against self-promotion, which you have to be careful of in this situation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I'm sure you don't mean any harm by it, but this situation happens multiple times a day here with people using the site as a way to advertise themselves or do other things. The website really does have a lot of rules these days and the bar for entry is much higher than it used to be. That may eventually change and it may not. Crewe is probably not going to meet the notability guidelines at the moment, thought if you guys get can get some regular coverage by various newspapers, websites and so forth or happen to win like the FA Cup, you could probably get on here. You can feel free to ask me anything you'd like, and I'll be happy to assist you if I can.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:BIO1E applies to people, not organizations. However WP:SUSTAINED applies, so a brief bursts of news coverage, such as after the Ronaldo bid, is not enough to demonstrate notability. Also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is an essay (basically an advice) and not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and as such has no bearing on football related notability. In this case, WP:ORG is the ruling guideline but it has pretty much the same critera as GNG, that the organization is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A really good rule of thumb is to have WP:THREE significant sources in any articles you create. Alvaldi (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping you? Sorry are you who decides what is put online? Why not give people a chance to actually grow something. There are multiple sources on there. We were on a national TV channel today for a live interview but if it isn't a link, it didn't happen. What do we do there? CreweNufan (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CreweNufan - I believe you could cite that interview. I don't know if people will challenge it, but it would be worth a shot.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a non league club. Are you expecting hundreds of column inches? It isn't a professional club. It is a club trying to grow and everyone on this community seems determined to undermine anyone progressing. Do you want the link for the interview on Sky Sports?! What about the hundreds of non league teams in the UK? Are they not allowed a wiki page? The negativity on this website is something I have never ever seen. CreweNufan (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CreweNufan Wikipedia is a place for articles about subjects who have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject over a sufficiently significant period of time. It sounds like the club has yet to gain that kind of notability. Note that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion, so you can't start a Wikipedia article about a non-notable club in an attempt to make it notable. Also note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so unless those non-league teams you mentioned have received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then they neither have a place on Wikipedia. I highly recommend that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Alvaldi (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will happily send you links to a podcast hosted on Apple with thousands of listeners and an interview with Sky Sports. We were even on German TV! Plus all the newspaper links. What more does everyone need? 217.38.78.254 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject over a sufficiently significant period of time. Interviews, such as the one on The Price of Football are not independent of the club as the information in them about the club comes from an individual (the one being interviewed) who is affiliated with the club. Alvaldi (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s all a complete hypocrisy. If that is the case then a lot of clubs and articles need deleting then. I will start marking these then shall we? How do people get information? They ask it from the club or the person about the article. There are thousands of articles where an interview with a celebrity is quoted. That’s from a person saying it. It is clear there is an agenda here and we are never going to win. We will continue to grow and flourish. Unlike a lot of the people with the agenda. If you can’t win, don’t let anyone else progress seems to be a mantra. Very sad to see. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to nominate for deletion articles of subjects, sport clubs or others, that fail their relevant inclusion criteria. Here is the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion that can aid you in that quest.

The only agenda here is to make sure that articles follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Honestly, I hope your club does well and one day will be notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Alvaldi (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I will be doing that, I think personally all parties deserve the right to have their information on the site. I have more things in life to show passion for rather than taking people down. I prefer to support people. Whilst I appreciate your positive words, and thank you for them, I personally don't think I will be bringing the club back to here unless someone else wants to write it. I have never met a community like this in my whole life. You only have to read the entry for Wikipedian on here to know what we all know. Unfortunately stopping others in making progression in life will not push you on in yours. We will continue and unfortunately just because we aren't able to reference us being on the number 1 sports news channel, doesn't mean it didn't happen. CreweNufan (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and comments above seem to indicate this is more about self-promotion that encyclopedic value. This club is currently well below the level we should be covering. Nigej (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please send me the citation reference for a Sky Sports interview and I will gladly put it up. We have at least 3 sources for reference. 2A02:C7F:5865:8C00:4465:1C8A:3EB8:89CB (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, doesn’t all information get put on could have self promotion element. In the nature of publishing information? There hasn’t been any sales type language used. What has been put has been all facts. Like we were on sky sports, pro sieben did send a film crew, we are top of the league. All facts but these were deleted. So we can’t win. Evidence can be provided but everyone seems to only want clubs of a certain size. Please advise. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is as above: the article ought to be deleted. Coverage about a gimmicky bid for Ronaldo or an interview or on a fan website are not the sort of significant coverage we're looking for here. Nigej (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case why are there pages for every other club other than football league? Can you answer that? I think there is no chance of us making any headway. Why don’t people just leave it as it is and we grow. The power has got to all of your heads unfortunately. Shame really. People just trying to get on life and progress a club. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a club without a significant coverage has an article on Wikipedia, then that article should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is live on sky sports news not deemed as decent coverage? It’s the premier sports news channel in the UK. What more do you want? 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain why a link to a podcast is now being deleted? You are asking for links and sources. We provide them and Seasider is deleting. Who are they to decide that it just isn’t notable enough in their view. Shall we all sit around and pass judgement on everyone who’s an administrator? Please help and explain. 217.38.78.254 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer the exact question. but we're looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The words "significant", "reliable sources" and "independent" are important. Weekly coverage in a quality national newspaper over an extended period would probably count. Stuff like podcasts is not really what we're about. Nigej (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can every item on here have to have weekly column inches? There’s not enough writers and papers to do that. How will that be plausible? It is a starting club. Just getting coverage is significant. It is the notion of we’re that you’re on here passing judgement about what is significant in the world. Is there even a point in us trying? 217.38.78.254 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to make your club notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia were anyone can write an article about your club after it becomes notable. Alvaldi (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be like anything. It grows with us and grows as we do. We aren’t looking to use it. We use social media and football related info for that. This is a place which we can add to and grow as we grow. We aren’t looking to use it grow. Who does that? We are using it a record of our story. Simple as that. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a web host, see WP:NOTWEBHOST. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this "Articles for deletion" process is for people to pass judgement, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The WP:notabilty of the article has been challenged and there is now a debate. After a week or so, someone will review the points made in the discussion and decide whether it should be kept or not, again based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's the process. Nigej (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear what is going to happen based on the negativity above. No one is looking at anything positive about the community and the efforts being made. Very poor and sad to see. But it is what it is. We will continue to grow 217.38.78.254 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases are rarely won by the person who moans the most. Generally they are won (or at least they ought to be) based on points of law. Nigej (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is moaning if it’s a fair offer to make progress. Unfortunately all evidence is not allowed. We have multiple evidences such as tv interviews, German tv crews flying to us, podcasts etc, but unless this is written by the guardian then unfortunately for you guys on here, it never happened. I put a record being an 11-0 win, the opponent and a date and a reference with a link to the FA website showing this clearly happened and this was still deleted. How can we win? We can’t. I doubt I will an answer to this. It will be some link. Please advise. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that you are correct and that there's nothing positive about Wikipedia or any of the people who has it as a hobby. However, it's also possible that you are seen as someone who entered McDonalds, ordered pizza, and then got pissed off when people told you they didn't serve it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I assumed that this was a site whereby we could establish a base knowledge. Use the information that has happened, and then grow it as we grow. Had we made a claim that we were hosting the World Cup then yeah fair enough it’s clear it’s BS. But I have been putting in actual things that have happened and it’s a case of unless it fits the agenda and very specific thing you guys want it can’t happen. I was assigned you as a tutor but help hasn’t been forthcoming. It’s a very closed and non welcoming community IMO which I would be appalled at if we had this in our community. I was shocked. I would have thought that you would be keen to grow the site with knowledge and information and would guide new members through the process to help everyone grow in tandem. But this reception is something I have been shocked at if I’m honest 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just ask, what is the issue of leaving the page as it is with the links we have and grow it as we grow? Can someone please explain it, the information is there as per what has been deemed fine by the oracle that is Seasider? CreweNufan (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I understand where the deletionists are coming from, there does seem to be an issue regarding the substance of notability. There is some degree there, but the club age is against it. Sources are built over time and it seems to me it needs more than what is on offer. I'd have to say, it does look like a possible article to send to draft space if it can be built up better. Govvy (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, which isn't surprising given how comparatively new this club is. In a couple of years time, if there is more sustained coverage, then maybe the club could have an article then and only then. The fact that every comment on this debate is being harassed by two people with a clear WP:COI also makes it seems like the intent of this article is promotion of the club, which is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. I do not require any negative responses from the COI editors to this comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I dont think harassed is a fair word but apologies if this is how you feel it was received. I personally felt I was backed into a corner with absolutely no positivity coming forward and felt we were fighting a losing battle. I think I will just get this page deleted. It is clear that there is no win. On the COI bit, who better to write the article is the people in there. Didn't realise it had to be a 3rd party. I wouldn't have thought writing an article on us would be of interest to a 3rd party. Promotion is done through all other mediums and this is a place I felt was a timeline of knowledge to centralise this. I won't personally be writing another article on here. Thank you all. CreweNufan (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am all for greater coverage of non-league football on Wikipedia, but this team plays at too low a step in the league system and has not received the amount of independent, significant coverage that I would consider necessary to pass WP:GNG. Even their league doesn't have an article. There is some uniqueness here due to the fan-owned online model, but even this is a rehash of something that has already been done (MyFootballClub). This is WP:TOOSOON and the WP:BLUDGEON being wielded by the COI editor is not going to change this. Flip Format (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no decent coverage outside of the one publicity stunt Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 28 March 2023 (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.