Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doncaster City F.C.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus for GNG and SIGCOV, with local coverage. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster City F.C.[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Doncaster City F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable club that hasn't competed in an FA cup competition Kivo (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Young club, there is some stuff online for them, but for me it's not enough I don't currently see GNG there. It maybe GNG in the far future if it lasts, however right now. Not enough sources for SIGNOV for me. Govvy (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's enough coverage to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many years ago I created articles for clubs playing in the Central Midlands League but they were deleted on notability grounds due to them having not played at step 6 or in a national cup competition. I tried to argue that the Central Midlands League/Alliance should be exempt from this because, unlike all other step 7 leagues, it covers several counties, and the league's geographical area was further expanded when it merged with the Midland Regional Alliance. However, this argument was dismissed and the articles were deleted. This AfD is the right time to have this conversation again and I would argue that the teams playing in the North and South divisions should be considered notable enough for their own articles, thereby meaning that this article would be kept. Rillington (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decent local coverage, along with some national coverage - already referenced in the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given what I previously hinted about CMA articles being seen as notable, and given that this article contains many independent references, I want to make it clear that I am voting for this article to be retained. Rillington (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Club that hasn't competed in an FA competition or at Step 6 of the NLS. If we are to allow RFL clubs to have articles, we have to allow ALL RFL clubs to have one. Kivo (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's the only reason for a potential delete but, as I said previously, I see the CMA as a special case due to it covering a much wider area than the other step 7 leagues which are all county leagues. This, to me, makes the CMA notable in a way that the other leagues are not for the purposes of each club having its own article on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CMA does not cover a "much wider area" than other step 7 leagues – its footprint is not substantially different to some of the larger county leagues like Lincolnshire, Norfolk or Kent, and is probably smaller than that of the West Lancs League. It just happens to cross county boundaries (but is also not alone in doing so). Number 57 17:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no rule, User:Kivo, that a team has to be at Step 6 or have competed in an FA competition, to have an article. If a team of kindergartners is getting long-term significant coverage, then it would be notable. Step 6 and FA competitions are just guidelines; and better applicable to teams with years of history, often at higher levels than they are at now. With a relatively new team, we can simply look at media coverage, which is all still accessible online, unlike Royston Vasey Town F.C.'s brief foray into an FA competition in the 1920s, which is hard to find online references to. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Kivo:, The difference betwen this club and other clubs is that this one ha salready received decent overage and will in the future as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The club seems to have generated some short-lived national coverage from a single event (the Scottish Cup stuff) but the rest is the kind of occasional coverage that even some Sunday league teams get in local newspapers. I would lean towards deletion on the basis of the Scottish Cup stuff falling under WP:NOTNEWS, without prejudice to re-creation if there is sustained coverage or the club manages to reach a notable level in future. Number 57 17:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems to pass WP:GNG - while they did get a splurt of news coverage for their publicity stunt they do have sustained local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – In English football there is normally WP:SIGCOV even for clubs in lower divisions, due to the arguments presented previously it is possible to determine notability. The fact that the club has not participated in an edition of the FA Cup does not seem to me to be a solid argument for deletion. Svartner (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doncaster_City_F.C.&oldid=1207934994"