Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokomotiv Cove FC

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 no consensus.Even when I weigh up strength of arguments, there is still no consensus here; I don't discriminate against new editors/IP's, but rather the strength of their argument. Daniel Bryant 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lokomotiv Cove FC

Lokomotiv Cove FC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is an amateur side, consisting of supporters of Sydney FC, that plays in a local Sydney league. Delete. BlueValour 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: The side was created as part of the supporters group from Sydney FC. The Club has played games before Hyundai A-League fixtures and has received national news coverage. Higdawg 11:26, 27 April 2007 (AEST)
  • Keep: The fact that it was created in 2007 and is irrelevant as this club has recieved nation media coverage on a number of occasions and has close connections with Sydney FC. Snr Verde11:16, 28 April 2007 (AEST)
  • Keep: the notability comes from the fact that it's a club created by and for and from the fans of Sydney FC - it's directly related to the club and it's a very unusual thing to have a supporters group form an entire club like this. Dibo T | C 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, basically, what you're saying, is that this team's existance is WP:INTERESTING? Lankiveil 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - surely it's completely normal for fans group to form teams among themselves? Completely non-notable, minor, amateur team. - fchd 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

*Keep: What makes this page different from AFC Wimbledon or FC United is only the amount of money that was put into the English clubs. Football in Australia is smaller thus the teams will start from smaller and more humble begginings. Higdawg 16:09 27 April 2007 (AEST)

        • Commment - and the fact that those clubs are semi-professional, and play at a level where they can compete in national competitions, at a level of football which has become "notable" by precedent and consensus... - fchd 06:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment: That is where the money comes into it. If supporters of Sydney had the capital to start with then they could have entered a team into the State League system. Why should the page be deleted because they have started smaller and plan to build up slowly? Higdawg 16:18 27 April 2007 (AEST)
            • Comment If and when Locomotive Cove FC plays at a level that can be considered notable then the article can be recreated. Wikipedia is not designed to predict the future. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity piece.Not notable at all. Downunda 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable - subject of coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Hack 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A social football team, definitely non-notable. The fact that they are fans of Sydney FC does not make them notable. - Mattinbgn/ talk 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, an amateur, social football club on their inaugural season in Division 2 of a suburban league? Sorry, but just not notable. Lankiveil 08:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. Teams of this level do not deserve Wikipedia articles Julius Sahara 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable supporters team. The point about AFC Wimbledon is irrelevant as they were created as a new club out of entirely different reasons and they consider they are the true Wimbledon football club. They are also playing semi-professionally in the English League System. FC United of Manchester were also established in totally different circumstances to this Supporters Club and, just as AFC Wimbledon are playing in the English Football League System. As for it being notable because it is a Supporters team, that is no reason for notabliilty as many clubs supporters have their own teams. Maybe if this team plays at a level where it is notable then it would be relevant to have a wikipedia article, but not yet and not now.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The club signifies a significant point in football in Australia as it is the first club of its type to be created. The sport in Australia has struggled to be excepted
  • Vote by unknown user. BlueValour 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have striked out the above keep vote by Higdawg as it was the second vote by the same user.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The club signifies a significant point in football in Australia as it is the first club of its type to be created. The sport in Australia has struggled to be accepted in world footballing circles so the fact that a supporters club team has formed from a fanbase that was once considered non existant by many is significant JHAC11:32, 28 april 2007
  • New user's only contribution. BlueValour 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but all the reasons being given to keep this club, to me, are weak at best reasons, and are also reasons why it should not be kept. As has been said above, if and when this club rises to a significant level then it could then be notable, but the simple fact is that at present it is not. I can appreciate why some are voting to keep the article as a lot of work has been done on it.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and ors. It's a minor club, does not play professionally, and all reasonable points supporting deletion are well based. Thewinchester (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: There is no difference between the merits of this page and Runcorn Linnets F.C. or Kingsbury London Tigers F.C. which are deemed suitable. Fat_Barstud 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sorry Tangerines, but perhaps you should realise for a second that football is very different in different parts of the world. You are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-league football, which maintains such illustrious teams as Kirby Muxloe SC and Mangotsfield United F.C. in such globally recognised competitions as the North West Counties Football League. Wikipedia exists to give people access to knowledge, and I'm sure as many people are interested in finding out about Lokomotiv Cove as are interested in many of those teams. I would even guess that the majority of the tens of thousands of Sydney FC supporters would be interested. In Australia, the development of football and its competitions has been a fragmented and corrupted process and resulted in a league structure which is nowhere near as fluent as that in England. The only reason I can see for most of your non-league teams being kept is that they "play at a level where they can compete in national competitions." Newsflash: Australia has one national competition, with eight teams. Had we an FA cup style competition, then Lokomotiv Cove would be competing, but we don't. This team is a wonderful initiative by football supporters who have banded together, in the space of one year, to an extent where they have formed a football team with the eventual aim of becoming a feeder club to the nation's premier team. However instead of acknowledging the different ways in which non-league football operates in different countries and acknowledging the efforts of this club, which have quite evidently been notable going by the extensive press coverage they have recieved, you seem intent on knocking a club whose creation does not fit into your narrow, inflexible view of the footballing world. This article is very notable, this club is a very important symbol of the advances Australian football has made in the last three years. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edblax (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 April 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.