Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangotsfield United 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangotsfield United F.C.[edit]

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

It is simply not notable as evidenced by the total absence of independent reliable sources. The many problem tags at the top of the page further reinforce my impression that WP simply doesn't need this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding a raft of notability tags doesn't make the subject non-notable. "reinforce my impression" - so no policy based rationale then? Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of; the total absence of independent reliable sources = Not Notable; do you not understand? This is an inconsequential little "Hicksville" club until proven otherwise by citing acceptable sources. Only fulltime professional clubs that play in the highest domestic league level in their country are eligible for a presumption of notability - all others must actually prove notability in terms of the GNG. So please enlighten us about when this club ever came within sniffing distance of playing for the FA Cup? It plays only at a regional domestic league level. For the record I did not add any of the tags, so please take care before implying that I am acting in bad faith. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're nominating all the other clubs in the Southern League footer template too? Just because it's currently unsourced doesn't equate to being non-notable. Read WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They played in the FA Cup this year. They beat Bitton 3–0 in the preliminary round on 31 August. They beat Winchester City 2–1 on 21 September, then lost 4–0 to Eastleigh on 28 September. See 2013–14 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds. Notice how every single one of the 737 clubs has an article. That is because WP:FOOTYN states that "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection against removal (but no support nor oppose) I can imagine the frustration that lies behind this nomination. In my opinion it is a case of: loose the new contributor or loose the article. You can't have a neutral article while Oaklandsraider is still editing there. Policies at stake are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. The Banner talk 20:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject obviously meets the guidelines in WP:FOOTYN. I'm finding it very hard to assume good faith here. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, take a look in the history of the article. The Banner talk 00:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am very familiar with the history; I have had this article on my watchlist since 2012. The recent instability has absolutely nothing to do with the subject's notability. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - surely nominating a current Southern League Division One team that previously played in the Southern League Premier league - one step below Conference South, is a joke. Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays at a level traditionally considered notable, see this for evidence of league and cup history. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - clear pass because of FOOTYN established consensus. Fenix down (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (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.