Talk:Bradford (Park Avenue) A.F.C.

Please go to

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there's much point in having a separate article for Horsfall Stadium just yet..can always be split off if/when there's enough verifiable info. Paulbrock 12:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate article does no harm and encourages development.GordyB 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Park Avenue were an English Football League club who went bust in the early 1970s. A new club called Bradford Park Avenue began to exist in 1988. There's sod all to connect them. Or as the highly reliable and fairly-spot-on-generally-like football website impstalk has it: [1]

Can we not indulge any fantasies and split the article, a la

The club is to all intents and purposes the same team. See here. Although I do realise your concerns. The extremely reliable FCHD site also backs up that claim. Peanut4 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Accrington Stanley pages are demerged (and the second Stanley incarnation was formed within two years of the one that went bust), then there is no reason why these two clubs are merged - as they do not even have the same name! Bradford AFC (1907-1974) and a Sunday League club formed three years later, that did not enter the league system (Bradford Park Avenue AFC) until fourteen years after Bradford AFC folded are two different clubs.

That the last user will point to the official site of Bradford Park Avenue AFC as claiming the name of the original in their own website (of course they will - it promotes the club better by latching on to the old name!). FCHD can not be considered reliable in this regard, as they do not even get the name of the original Bradford AFC club correct - after all, (Park Avenue) was originally added as a subtag by the press, in order to differentiate from Bradford City and the Bradford Northern rugby league club.

robeff1 (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite split IMHO. Original club was liquidated, so they are legally different clubs. Being "to all intents and purposes the same team" is original research - no sources except the biased bpafc.com site [NB: at this point in time fchd.info site is no longer available]. I could claim I am a descended blood relative of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, King Henry VII of England, Napoleon III of France, Ferdinand VII of Spain, and Sultan Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire; and therefore through a combination of spiritual superiority and by claims to the thrones of empires, am the rightful leader of the world... I could even make my own personal website about it and cite it as evidence... Wouldn't be true though... 2.217.104.58 (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree we should have two articles, on
  Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. (the association football club). I'll be bold and do it in a few days if no-one objects... GiantSnowman 10:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I also agree the article should be split to differentiate between the original club (1863-1970) and the current one (1987). And there seems to be a consensus to move ahead with this. The article should include the rugby period before 1907 as this was the same club. Mooretwin (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm going to proceed with this. Mooretwin (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the idea of a single article. Folks reconstituted a club in 1987 (a mere 13 years after teh last traces of the older one) with the idea of reviving the Park Avenue identity. I'd make a case for Accrington...but that'd be on a different page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointing that the split into two articles has been reversed without discussion. What do secondary sources say? Do they recognise the current club as being the same as the original? Mooretwin (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This one doesn't Mooretwin (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was very disappointing that you took it upon yourself to undertake such a large and controversial series of edits, and that you managed to botch it up so spectacularly at the same time. This needs careful consideration and deep discussion before we attempt it. GiantSnowman 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did I botch it up? I agree it needs careful consideration, but I left several weeks for others to comment and nobody did, so I was

bold. Mooretwin (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, Mooretwin, that is a commercial/personal website, while the official website certainly seems to have a signle cohesive history covering all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source, with a vested interest in portraying itself as a continuation of the historic club. We need to decide what to do based on the secondary sources. Mooretwin (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source[2] - "Before rising again" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that an archaeology web site could be considered as a reliable secondary source on this matter, although I do note that it refers to the original club being liquidated. What do others think? Mooretwin (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current club is a successor to the original, and I see no need for the articles to be separated. Middlesbrough were liquidated in 1986 and the current club is a successor – the corporate entity is not necessarily the same thing as the club itself. There was a good letter from a corporation lawyer in When Saturday Comes this month on the subject. Number 57 14:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling upon all users with knowledge on the