Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke William CSA FC
Source: 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 of the debate was no consensus.
Mailer Diablo 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Duke William CSA FC
Non-notable pub football side. They do not take part in any senior competition such as the FA Cup, nor do they play at a proper stadium or charge for admission. Google returns hardly any hits: 8 for "Duke William CSA" and only 1 for "Duke William FC". There are literally thousands of such teams in England alone. Delete. Qwghlm 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep True, there may be 1,000s of such sides but why don't they deserve a place in Wiki? The information is quite nicely set out too, so I would keep it. Gretnagod 21:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice formatting is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Notability is. This is just a pub team, in an obscure Sunday league. If we followed your reasoning, any sports team, no matter how insignificant, is eligible for inclusion in WP. Qwghlm 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't actually mean the layout as such. But, given that a synopsis of every episode of Family Guy has a listing, why shouldn't all the pub teams. They've gone out of ther way to make an entry, and kicking them off seems a bit harsh. If Manchester United and Liverpool are allowed entries, why are they not? Where do you draw the line? Conference South? Ryman League? Kentish Observer League? Gretnagod 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From discussions on WikiProject Football and previous AfDs, the line is probably about level 10 of the football pyramid for English clubs, i.e. any club eligible to enter the FA Cup or FA Vase is kept. Oldelpaso 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't actually mean the layout as such. But, given that a synopsis of every episode of Family Guy has a listing, why shouldn't all the pub teams. They've gone out of ther way to make an entry, and kicking them off seems a bit harsh. If Manchester United and Liverpool are allowed entries, why are they not? Where do you draw the line? Conference South? Ryman League? Kentish Observer League? Gretnagod 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice formatting is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Notability is. This is just a pub team, in an obscure Sunday league. If we followed your reasoning, any sports team, no matter how insignificant, is eligible for inclusion in WP. Qwghlm 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator and earlier football project discussion. -- Elisson • Talk 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no thanks --ask? 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Personally, I couldn't care less about this page but it raises a point - what should be deleted and what shouldn't be? There is a synopsis of every episode of Family Guy for goodness sake, and at least this football team is real. I would rather have every pub team in the UK in wiki than pages and pages devoted to cartoon catchphrases, as we seem to have. Gretnagod 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're trying to compare apples and oranges here - pub football teams and cartoon series are quite different things. For what it's worth, a defender of Family Guy could justify its detailed inclusion by virtue of it getting several million viewers (and many more who buy the DVDs), while pub teams are generally watched by the proverbial three men and a dog. WP's systemic bias to things like Western cartoon shows is a problem, but it's not one solved by filling it with articles about the totally obscure. Qwghlm 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and the similarity in name between the contributer and the manager is not surprising Andymarczak 10:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity, per Andymarczak. Stifle 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I would take a wide interpretation of notability in wikipedia with respect to football teams/competitions: as long as it is a serious and known one in real life, it should be deemed notable without regards of whether it is within a league structure recognised by FIFA or its affiliates (eg The FA). --Pkchan 04:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep BTW footy project has this to say: "Please use the talk page to discuss which football-related subjects are notable enough to have their own page on Wikipedia. When a consensus is reached, we can put the decisions here." Rich Farmbrough. 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although nothing has been laid down yet, there have been ongoing discussions about what qualifies for a club for notability. I proposed having notable players, participation in the national cup, and charging for admission and these were largely agreed with. This club does not meet any of these. Qwghlm 16:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable --Angelo 16:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good article. Kappa 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a real football club, and the article is very good. Carioca 23:59, 12 February 2006 (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.