Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bentley Colliery F.C.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Colliery F.C.[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, at 12th position, notability for English football clubs is 10th position. Also nominating the following teams in the same league, for the same reason: Blidworth Welfare F.C., Bolsover Town F.C., Forest Town F.C., Grimsby Borough F.C., Harworth CI F.C., Hatfield Main F.C., Kiveton Park F.C., Newark Flowserve F.C., Newark Town F.C., Ollerton Town F.C., Pinxton F.C., Sandiacre Town F.C., Thoresby Colliery Welfare F.C., Thorne Colliery F.C., Welbeck Colliery Welfare F.C., Yorkshire Main F.C. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep to all because it does not fail notability criteria because clubs from this league participate in the FA Vase. This is probably the strongest 12th level league in the country, probably stronger than most level 11s.
  • Comment Only four of them will compete for the FA Vase, so only those four should have the possibility of being considered notable for that reason. And as noted above, even if "stronger than most level 11s", level 11s are also not notable enough according to WP:CORP. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rather than being deletionist for the sake of being deletionist, I think it's within the realm of common sense to recognize that the CML is a much stronger and better-known league than almost all of its counterparts at its level. I understand the need to delete pub-league type clubs and understand that it is policy that notability is inherent, but not limited to levels 1-10, but I think it would be a waste to junk all these clubs because they do have the potential to be expanded, unlike a random level 15 club that almost no one knows about.--Balerion 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there was a unanimous concensus during discussions that Level 10 should be the cut-off. BlueValour 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where do we stop, though? I'm not really deletionist, but to allow these teams means we shouldn't prevent future level 12 teams from getting articles. Since the rule is generally level 10 and up, it's already a stretch to include more than the odd very notable level 11 team, let alone a bunch of level 12 ones. Eventually someone will come along and write a really excellent article for a level 13 team (or a whole league-full of teams). What will we do then? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to stop when the articles start failing WP:V. Once we get to a level where the articles are no longer verifiable, we have to get rid of them. I don't think we've reached that point yet, for most of these teams at any rate. Keep in mind, too, that the encyclopedia as a whole is growing by thousands of articles a day, so as coverage of other topics grows it probably makes sense to expand coverage of football clubs to a certain extent too. Since the articles are all quite small right now, merge the lot into the league article, which doesn't say anything about any of the clubs right now. JYolkowski // talk 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blidworth, Harworth, Hatfield Main, Kiveton Park, Thorne and Yorkshire Main because of past participation at higher level, and delete the rest. - fchd 10:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and redirect to Central Midlands Football League - the threshold in WP:CORP is Level 10 so the argument that they may be as strong as Level 11 teams is not relevant. The key point is that to survive the articles need to demonstrate notability - i.e. that they have won something significant, have a notable event in their history etc. I have not spotted any such notability. My suggestion is that the limited content from each club's entry be included in the League article and redirects are set up so that they can be found. This should be the practice for the many other leagues that are sure to come this way. BlueValour 22:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all - They all urgently need expansion, but I am confident that they can all be made into worthwhile articles. I can easily see some poor user looking up a football team only to be redirected to a league or treated to a 'Wikipedia does not have a page with this name' message. - Blood red sandman 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since they fail WP:CORP for inherent notability please explain, for each club, their notability with independent sourcing. BlueValour 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Blidworth, Harworth, Hatfield Main, Kiveton Park, Thorne and Yorkshire Main because of past participation and merge the rest Yuckfoo 18:40, 30 August 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bentley_Colliery_F.C.&oldid=1069233686"