Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Irish Amateur (2nd nomination)

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 merge to London Irish. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Irish Amateur[edit]

AfDs for this article:
London Irish Amateur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur club. Fishead 2100 had nonadmin closed this unilaterally before within the first 24 hours, with the only other comment being from the article's creator.

There are no references other than a primary source, and it's a nonprofessional team. CynofGavuf 19:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Not again! We've been through this before. Just because it's an Amateur Club, that doesn't make it automatically not notible. If we went by your reasoning we should delete Queen's Park F.C. as well as this. Anyway the club is a branch of a Premiership club which goes with notibility. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: Well, I can see I'm fighting a losing battle so to make sure all my work hasn't been compleatly in vain, I have to accept the merge of all the information into London Irish untill such a time that an acceptable 3rd party source becomes avalible to make LIA suitible for it's own page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CLUB by any standard. As for "club is a branch of a Premiership club", notability is not inherited. Rodhullandemu 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (ec)- I can find no mention of this club in reliable secondary sources. Despite C of E's claim, branches of organizations do not automatically inherit notability from their parent organizations. Reyk YO! 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to your reasoning we should delete Sheffield United (Hong Kong) as that is just a branch of Chengdu Blades. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other similar articles exist doesn't mean this one automatically should. The other article may meet our inclusion criteria through coverage in independent sources, or maybe it doesn't but Wikipedia just hasn't got around to considering it yet. Reyk YO! 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this source or maybe this as some sources from outside the Amateur site? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)
Please see WP:SPS; these cannot be used to establish notability. Rodhullandemu 20:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fishhead nonadmin closed this before while violating a few policies on nonadmin closures in the process, did so within the first 24 hours, when only he and the article's creator had commented, and edit warred about re-oppening it. CynofGavuf 21:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't really matter what happened in the last one. If you had an issue with it, you should have done something about it at the time. GedUK  16:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page now has a few 3rd party sources so that art of the nomination I believe is WP:STALE. And as for the second part of it just being a non-professional team, then if this page is deleted because of that, afterwards you should delete Queen's Park F.C. and Harlequin Amateurs as they are non-proffesional teams and so (according to CynofGavuf's resoning) they must be deleted too. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete From current sources.
  • [1] is not in depth coverage
  • Anything from http://www.london-irish.com/GetInvolvedAmateurs.ink fails to be indendent from topic.
  • Anything from http://www.rfu.com fails to be independent from the topic since the London Irish is part of rfu.
  • Your local guardian gives indepth coverage. I think local newspapers are usually considered reliable.
  • [2] does not seem to cover the club, rather it covers a specific incidence that took place at the club. So not nontrivial coverage.
  • [3] [4] These article gives a play by play of a matches against the London Irish. I am not sure if I consider this as nontrivial coverage of the club, although it's far more borderline than the above.
  • [5] match results. Clearly trivial coverage.
We have indepth coverage from a single local newspaper, which I consider insufficient to establish notability. Taemyr (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Merge should be unproblematic though. Taemyr (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this source? [6]? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have found a source here that says that LIA's ground also contains London Irish's Headquaters which must at least have some notibility. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fishhead2100 (who uses a signature saying "Mr. C.C.") has given strings of links, but they are mostly just brief match reports in local media, trivial mentions, and at least one which does not even mention London Irish Amateur, (though it has an indirect connection). Fishhead2100 says "I could keep going, but you get this idea." Yes, I do indeed, but not perhaps the idea that Fishhead2100 had in mind. As for the arguments put forward by the one other "keep" editor (The C of E, author of the article), we are given the notion that notability is inherited, the notion that the article should exist because there are other articles with no more justification, links to the club's own site and a site selling tickets for it (described by The C of E as "sources"), and a link to a Wikimapia aerial photograph of a football ground, with a note saying it is the home ground of the London Irish Amateur. However, The C of E provides nothing at all that relates even vaguely to the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it is not relevant to a decision on whether or not to delete, I should like to say that the behaviour of Fishhead2100 in the previous AfD was appalling. The first time this editor non-admin closed the AfD doing so could not, in my view, be justified, but perhaps there is room for disagreement, as the nomination was not well done. However, the second time the same editor closed the AfD it was clearly unacceptable. By this time the defects in the nomination had been put right (statement had been added that there were no references etc). The correct thing to do was to invite better explanations as to why the article was nominated, not to repeatedly remove the nomination. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed that the wikimapedia source also gives that the HQ of the Parent club is located at the same ground that the amateur team plays at. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All together now - NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED. Standing in my garage does not make me a Skoda, being sited in the grounds does not make the pie stand notable either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that anything was missed. The link is to a page which gives no evidence whatever of notability for either of the teams: all it does is show us what the ground looks like from the air and tells us that it is their ground. 79.123.75.127 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one last try. this source shows that it recieved a grant from Irish government which they must deem as notible as they are giving them money to be supported. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Government gives small grants to many, many, hundreds of organisations overseas (that document just deals with the UK) that deal with Irish emigrants, from large groups such as the FIS and GAA, right down to a few hundred pounds here and there to refurbish Irish expat's clubs. It certainly doesn't make any of those groups notable in themselves (as you'll see when you look down the list). Black Kite (t) (c) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some years ago I received a government grant to contribute towards the cost of insulating my home. That does not make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. 79.123.75.127 (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just one thing I think I ought to mention to the closing admin. You should count the votes manually as the automatic AFD statistics are not recognising some of the votes cast here and so the article could be dealt with in a way that is not what consensus has been voted for. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errr - what automatic AfD statistics? Come to that, what votes, and what manual count? AfD is not a vote - the closing admin has the job of considering the policy arguments put forward, not counting the votes. 50 fans can !vote to keep an article, but all it takes is one or two people pointing out correctly that it fails notability standards; or conversely, 50 people can argue that it's cruft, and two people with good Google-fu (or a reference library) turn up 20 sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then hide from my son who is a London Irish fan and can beat me in a fair fight despite only being 15 and I am over 6ft tall and fit. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. A lot of amateur clubs are generally not notable, but I'm a little concerned whether this content should be kept by merging it into a more notable club. Both clubs do have different players. If there are any highly notable players in an amateur club I would keep the content, but not at the moment. In other words I entirely agree with Rodhullandemu on this nomination. Minimac (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it says here Irish internationals Justin Bishop and Kieran Campbell came from the club, so is that what you might consider notible? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (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/London_Irish_Amateur_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140239651"