Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Park F.C. (1868)

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. The "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Park F.C. (1868)

[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)

A short-lived club for which we have some match reports but nothing actually establishing notability. Fram (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is why they are notable - there were so few clubs in 1868 (the FA membership was barely a dozen) that South Park FC was, in essence, of the same stature as a current League team. Including a short-lived club like South Park shows the development of the game and the evanescence of some early clubs. Plus it might stimulate research into any further influence on the game. In Vitrio (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@In Vitrio: As the creator, you will of course feel more defensive, however I am unsure if the comment "South Park FC was, in essence, of the same stature as a current League team", is anywhere close to valid. I take the point (to an extent) that early clubs may deserve some recognition, although not if there is little to no significant coverage of them. Your comment sounds a bit like you like the idea of them having an article but without being able to demonstrate that they actually were notable at the time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to trace the development of the game in the pre-FA Cup days, when the code nearly died out, to show that there were teams bubbling up from the quantum foam of the unorganized sport. Given the size of the membership, South Park must have been active with games between members; that it had few external games is a reflection of the club's youth. There could be a false impression if it is restricted to survivors who, a fortiori, are going to be notable for their age if nothing else.

They were at least notable enough to warrant reports in the national press - their games are covered in Bell's Life, The Field, and The Sportsman. There are numerous other clubs from the era who did not reach that standard (to pick two examples, the Holt club and London Scottish Rifles), so the club was not part of the amorphous mass of anonymity. In Vitrio (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this nominated in under an hour of its creation? Hardly fair if you ask me, you haven't even given the article any breaving room. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. There might be merit in a list or article about the history of association football in England in the 1860s, where this club can be mentioned and redirected to, but in the absence of that it should be deleted (or draftified). Giant Snowman 18:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be original research. But what are the notability criteria? This club had more than one match reported in more than one national newspaper, that instantly puts them above pretty much every non-league team... In Vitrio (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"more than one national newspaper"? Only "The Sportsman" is quoted, which other newspaper would that be? According to this, this weekly "newspaper" had a circulation in the hundreds before 1874, making it more like a fanzine and less a "national newspaper" anyway. Fram (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, Bell's Life and The Field. They also made the Alcock annual. The national newspapers were not interested in football much in the 1860s, a quick search at the Times archive doesn't have any hits even for the Wanderers. Does every source have to be quoted? (genuine question) In Vitrio (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, which isn't surprising considering it's a club which existed for all of 1 year. Cannot see a relevant redirect/merge candidate. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A short article, but encyclopaedic. If we can't find somewhere to merge it, we should keep it as is. SpinningSpark 17:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments (and thus rationale) above, which I am unchanged by despite the above !keeps. At a push, an alternative may be redirecting to 1860s in association football#1867, although there is currently no mention there and it doesn't seem significant enough that there should be. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Bungle. As a history buff I am not opposed to a redirect per ATD or a merge into a history section of an appropriate article where scant sources are not dependent on advancing notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires a subject to be notable to warrant inclusion. To demonstrate this notability, it needs to be sourced by 'multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. It does not appear this article meets this requirement and so it does not meet either notability or verifiability standards and ought to be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. South Park, Ilford is a possible merge target, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is the same South Park as where the club played. It was not officially a park until 1902, but the club was formed in 1867. It's article says it was previously farmland, but I have a source (which I will soon add to the article) which clearly shows it was being used for purposes other than farming at around the right time period (but not explicitly football). SpinningSpark 09:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge part content to 1860s in association football#1867 per Bungle, deleting helps no one. Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2022 (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.