Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Sports 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Article has been improved to meet notability standards. C 679 06:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Sports F.C.[edit]

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

No indication why this topic is notable. C 679 14:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment played in the FA Cup which is generally considered notable. Giant Snowman 14:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although their tenure in the English league system was short, they played in the FA Cup and won the Kent League, both of which make them notable in my opinion. I'm sure this article could be expanded. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in FA Cup and at level 10Babylon77 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see in the link provided that they only played in the qualifying round of the FA Cup (and qualifying round of the FA Trophy) and not in the main draw. The qualifying for 1969-70 lists 280 matches (excluding preliminary round and replays), I would be hesitant to say each of these clubs should automatically be considered notable. Another comment was that this article could be expanded; apparently seven years of being on Wikipedia has yielded a grand total of zero references. Nothing here screams notability, so I would question this "automatic notability" which seems to be being given far too freely on this occasion. There is certainly no hint of WP:GNG to be found. C 679 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added a load more content, all reliably sourced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been massively improved, now up-to-scratch and notability not an issue. Giant Snowman 22:17, 8 February 2013 (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.