Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littleton F.C.
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 Delete. There is a clear consensus that clubs of this level are not inherently notable (though some are for various reasons). Eluchil404 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Littleton F.C.
Non-notable English non-league football club. Level 10 has become the accepted view for notability of such clubs through numerous AFD's, and Littleton have never played at that level or higher. In addition, they seem to hold no other reason for notability - they are a local village team with no significant coverage in third party sources. fchd 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking reliable sources establishing notability. /Blaxthos 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: not notable (lack of coverage in WP:RS). — DIEGO talk 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:Either a weak keep or delete all but Alveston, Mile Oak Rovers and West Midlands Police from this division. Peanut4 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete along with the other teams in this division who have not played at a higher level, which I believe is everyone bar Alveston, Mile Oak, Northfield and WM Police. I'm baffled why all these articles were created last month in the first place..... ChrisTheDude 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- They've been created by a user who is systematically creating articles for all Step 7 teams. He/she has recently created all the Anglian Combination, Bedfordshire League, Brighton & Hove League and Cambridgeshire League Step 7 teams. I wouldn't be surprised if articles start appearing for Cheshire League teams next. - fchd 06:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this and all other teams in the division (except those that have played at a higher level i.e. the four mentioned above plus Knowle and possibly Newhall Utd). - Snigbrook 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please view my comments on this here. I am the one who is responsible for creating articles on level 11 clubs because they are part of the National league system. It is my deepest desire to have ALL level 11 clubs being included into this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It is time to include level 11 clubs as inherently notable because they are in the leagues which are part of the National League System. It is my vision to include ALL these clubs into this project. Moreover, this club has its own website and there is potential for this article to be expanded. I do not share the nominator's statement that level 11 clubs should be deleted from this project. Although there seems to be a lack of coverage in reliable sources, this club has its own website and I do not think that the information in that website is not reliable. Moreover, it must be noted that the information in this article is verified, which is an important policy of this project. Additionally WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy of this project. One must take note that these guidelines are not set in stone as well. It is my hope that in the future, consensus will change and ALL level 11 clubs will have their own articles as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; if you want to change the current guidelines please discuss it somewhere else, as this is the wrong place to do it. --Angelo 09:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, thanks for your advise. I have already started this discussion on this page. Please feel free to add in your thoughts about this discussion. It is my intention for ALL level 11 clubs to have their own articles. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment/Abstain I notice that the club has been running for over 100 years, and (from the official website) the club is attempting to put together material for a "history of" book. Interesting, if not enough to save this article. Paulbrock 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I strongly agree with you. Moreover, in the club website, it is stated that they will provide a comprehensive history of the club soon. Also, this club is within the scope of WikiProject Non-league football as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't believe that simply being very old gives the club notability. The village cricket club where my parents-in-law live has been running since 1885 but isn't even remotely notable..... ChrisTheDude 07:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my point is to state that ALL level 11 clubs of the English football pyramid should be inherently notable. The reason? They belong to leagues which are part of the National league system. Moreover, the information on the article is verified which means that it is very, very unlikely to be inaccurate. Having a WikiProject on non-league football where step 7 (or level 11) clubs are being excluded from this project makes little sense. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Having the axe fall between level 10 and level 11 sort of draws the line between those clubs which, on the whole, have coverage in multiple reliable sources, and those which don't. Individual cases on either side can of course stand or fall on their own merits. Your inability to find anything other than the club's official site to back up the verifiability of a single sentence stub speaks volumes. In addition, even this basic information in the article was inaccurate - it was saying that the club played in a Littleton in Gloucestershire - before I corrected it. The presence or absence of a WikiProject, or its scope, is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits. If you can establish the necessary coverage in WP:RS, please do so. Incidentally, I have recently discovered that the club had an earlier short period in the lower divisions of the Midland Combination, but in my opinion this article is still a long way from demonstrating notability. - fchd 11:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, correction. I stated that the club was based in Evesham. I did not state that the club played in a Littleton in Gloucestershire. It was IP user 84.71.192.229 who made that incorrect statement. Please check the history page. Anyway, let us put this behind and I urge you to add the additional information that you have discovered that the club had a short period in the lower divisions. At least, let us work together in finding ways to expand this article as well! --Siva1979Talk to me 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was you that had put them at the wrong Littleton. - fchd 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, correction. I stated that the club was based in Evesham. I did not state that the club played in a Littleton in Gloucestershire. It was IP user 84.71.192.229 who made that incorrect statement. Please check the history page. Anyway, let us put this behind and I urge you to add the additional information that you have discovered that the club had a short period in the lower divisions. At least, let us work together in finding ways to expand this article as well! --Siva1979Talk to me 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Having the axe fall between level 10 and level 11 sort of draws the line between those clubs which, on the whole, have coverage in multiple reliable sources, and those which don't. Individual cases on either side can of course stand or fall on their own merits. Your inability to find anything other than the club's official site to back up the verifiability of a single sentence stub speaks volumes. In addition, even this basic information in the article was inaccurate - it was saying that the club played in a Littleton in Gloucestershire - before I corrected it. The presence or absence of a WikiProject, or its scope, is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits. If you can establish the necessary coverage in WP:RS, please do so. Incidentally, I have recently discovered that the club had an earlier short period in the lower divisions of the Midland Combination, but in my opinion this article is still a long way from demonstrating notability. - fchd 11:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete. Regardless of discussions on what level of football is notable, the core notability requirement is non trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. These are sorely lacking so there is only one outcome, although I will reconsider if that changes. Nuttah68 18:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - when guidelines are changed to include level 11 (they no doubt will be), recreate the article(s). To have created them beforehand as some sort of attempt at bringing pressure to bear in a campaign is folly. Ref (chew)(do) 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Personally I don't believe that all level 11 clubs will ever (or should) be deemed "inherently" notable. This season there's been a level 11 match (The 61 v Totternhoe in the Spartan South Mids League Division 2) at which the paying attendance was 5 people - how on earth could we justify making ALL clubs at that level inherently notable when some of them pull in that sort of "crowd".....? ChrisTheDude 10:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Clarify - my above comment about "when guidelines are changed to include level 11" does not mean that I endorse it - far from it. I am merely commenting on the natural and continual diversification and expansion of the encyclopedia, meaning that ever more boundaries will be pushed, until eventually that level is included. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I also share the same vision. It is my belief that notability guidelines will be even more inclusive in the future and boundaries will be pushed as human knowledge and interests increase in substantial amount. But this is not the place to discuss about that now. --
220.255.188.8 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Siva1979Talk to me 10:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I also share the same vision. It is my belief that notability guidelines will be even more inclusive in the future and boundaries will be pushed as human knowledge and interests increase in substantial amount. But this is not the place to discuss about that now. --
- Clarify - my above comment about "when guidelines are changed to include level 11" does not mean that I endorse it - far from it. I am merely commenting on the natural and continual diversification and expansion of the encyclopedia, meaning that ever more boundaries will be pushed, until eventually that level is included. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Nuttah68. Oldelpaso 09:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
