Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magherafelt Sky Blues F.C.

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. Courcelles 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magherafelt Sky Blues F.C.[edit]

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

Does not appear to play in a national league (just an amateur, intermediate, regional one), so fails WP:FOOTYN. Fails WP:GNG since appears only to have one independent reliable source. Sitush (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:FOOTYN as the club has "played in the national cup" : Irish Cup 2010/11. Not playing in a national league is irrelevant. Mooretwin (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then why did you not state the cup point in the article or in the edit summary for your removal of the PROD? These Irish football and cricket stubs you are creating with an absolute minimum of sourcing (often, none) are placing a ridiculous burden on other people if you have even a tad of notability information that you could include more or less at the outset. I withdraw the AfD due to the point now raised. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why did I not state the cup point? Because I didn't need to - a reference to WP:FOOTYN was sufficient. Why did you not read WP:FOOTYN? Mooretwin (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I tried to source it. I'm usually pretty good at sourcing. There was no indication that they played in the national league structure etc & your proven total misunderstanding of the cricket notability guidelines made me extremely wary of your position. Honestly, the problem with this and many other of your sports club articles (which have been deleted) is that you provide no support. As soon as you mentioned the cup thing, I was prepared to withdraw the nomination if it is properly sourced. The onus is on you to provide a decent stub otherwise A7 applies etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mooretwin and WP:BEFORE places responsibility for checking for sources on the person nominating the article for deletion. Keresaspa (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : As the article stands, it could be deleted as CSD A7 as it makes no claim to the significance of the club, as WP:FOOTYN says that clubs playing in the "national cup are assumed to meet WP:N" with only the one source looks like it may be one of the cases where this assumption is wrong and this club may well fail WP:GNG so unless better sourcing is forthcoming it should be deleted without prejudice to recreation if sourcing is later found. Mt king ^(edits) 16:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the update by Keresaspa, moving to neutral. Mt king ^(edits) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has now been expanded a bit by me. Keresaspa (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Keresaspa (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a national cup, so meets WP:FOOTYN. Note to nominator - playing in a regional or amateur league is NOT reason to delete, many notable teams do so. Giant Snowman 12:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, has played in a national cup. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:12, 28 August 2011 (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.