Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wattsfield Athletic YFC

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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wattsfield Athletic YFC[edit]

While there's a claim of importance (winning trophies), gsearch and gnews search isn't coming up with a whiff of notability for this youth club. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim of winning trophies was in the original version of the article. I'm unclear on why the IP editor removed it, except that maybe s/he thought it was a problem since it was mentioned in the PROD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable club. Youth clubs should be pretty exceptionally good to stay in WP in my opinion. --Ged UK (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Small time non notable and a long way from it.--ClubOranje^T 07:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly well below the required threshold. When I read an "article" like this, I despair for the quality of teaching in English schools. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't judge the notability, because the article is unverifiable. [1]. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems verifable enough to me [2] [3]. It's a Cumbrian U12 team. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (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.