Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurmaston Town 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. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thurmaston Town F.C.

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

Disputed prod, procedual nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they have only played below the generally accepted cut-off point for English teams (Step 10), as confirmed by the FCHD. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't the Leicestershire Senior League Premier, where they currently play, at Step 7?--Michig (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed. But the WP:FOOTY rule-of-thumb cut-off-point is Step 6 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedents for notability.--Michig (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Neutral until we have an agreed cut-off point for notability (step 6? step 7? step 10?) - the football project should really get to grips with this. Totally unsourced articles such as this should at least meet some agreed notability criterion if they're going to stay.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm aware, the football project has "got to grips with this" and Step 6 was the decision. Nobody in this AfD appears to be claiming that Step 7 is notable, and Bettia's reference to Step 10 is an error, based on the fact that Step 6 is the 10th level of the overall English football system (you've got the four fully professional levels, then Step 1, then Step 2, and so on) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, it does not appear to be documented anywhere, and it seems clear that there are differeing interpretations of notability in these discussions.--Michig (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, I don't think we need to set in stone a rule like Step 6=notable, Step 7=non-notable. Take each case on its own merits, and keep those with the multiple, independent, non-trivial reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is surely a level where clubs are notable by virtue of playing at that level. A guideline stating when a club will generally be notable would(/should) not mean that clubs that don't meet the criteria in the guideline are necessarily non-notable, but would help to avoid unnecessary deletion debates.--Michig (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really understand the argument that we only keep articles with multiple, independent, non-trivial reliable sources, while at the same time !voting to keep this article, which has zero references.--Michig (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Leicestershire Senior League was a de facto Step 6 type league from 1999 to about 2004, when all three Midland Alliance feeders were dropped to Step 7 (The WMRL and Mid Comb since regained official Step 6 status while the LSL didn't). I don't necessarily agree with the fact that "Step 6 = notable" and "Step 7 = non-notable" by default, let alone the fact that a single FA Vase appearance gives notability, but if that is the consensus we are working with, Thurmaston Town pass. - fchd (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Rundle. matt91486 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The argument that the LSL Premier was "de facto" Step 6 is weak and flawed! The KCL and Essex Olympian League are still "de facto" step 6 but that hasnt't stopped any of their member clubs (who havent played at "proper" step 6 before on in the FAC or FAV) having their articles deleted. Sarumio (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FCHD. Giant Snowman 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no consensus has been reached on the cut off level Skitzo (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (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.