Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tewkesbury Town F.C.

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 as non-notable team, fails relevant portions of WP:CORP. - KrakatoaKatie 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tewkesbury Town F.C.

Tewkesbury Town F.C. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This football team has never played in the top ten levels of the English football league system, which is required by WP:CORP. Prod tag was removed by major contributor to the article (who is also the team's manager) without explanation, so here it is at AfD ChrisTheDude 09:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - membership of the Cheltenham League is not high enough by a mile. That about does it really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - ish Fails WP:CORP and at glance WP:COI applies. Surely a one or two liner in Tewkesbury is the answer ?Pedro |  Chat  10:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Merge is not appropriate, as a consensus at Tewkesbury seem to believe this article worthy of a "See also" internal link in that article. I do not believe that a Merge would assuage the Tewkesbury editors. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the editors of Tewkesbury should refer to WP:OWN if they have an issue. Pedro |  Chat  10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge as per Pedro, regardless of what the existing editors of the Tewkesbury article think. - fchd 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:CORP by a long way. Any mention in the article Tewkesbury should be in passing and not of the detail given here, so no need to merge at all. Qwghlm 10:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not being at the level of competitive football accepted as notable, and providing no evidence for notability by any other means. The issue of whether to include a passing mention in the Tewkesbury article is up to people editing that article - at any rate, it would not appropriate to insert something of the length of this article, so I would not go for a merge. Robotforaday 15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment No further Merge required, in view of my edit to the aforementioned article, removing the link to Tewkesbury Town F.C. and replacing it with as much passing info as you would need. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment It appears this is the third of four Tewkesbury teams in Cheltenham League. PrimeHunter 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment and sits in Division Four of five divisions, to boot. So not even at the top tier of this lowly league. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree that the description in the Tewkesbury article is quite sufficient for such a NN local club. Peterkingiron 22:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the former standard of the top 10 levels has been removed from WP:CORP, so unless it goes back it can no longer be cited and the discussion has to go back to each team's notability. TerriersFan 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the Cheltenham League is described as level 14, so the article up for deletion is still way outside the frame on notability. Note also my previous comment re: Division Four of five divisions. They can't even contend for the prime Cheltenham League championship as things stand. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I am not arguing that this team is notable. The point that I am making, from an amin perspective, is that no admin will have regard to the level that the team plays at unless the Football project decides to press the inclusion of the agreed standard in WP:Corp. Failing that the only consideration is if there are multiple, reliable secondary sources . TerriersFan 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just cite overwhelming longstanding precedent and consensus amongst WP:FOOTBALL editors.......? ChrisTheDude 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, it looks like it won't be a problem but the issue will arise when someone defends a team with multiple references from the local paper. AfDs are never closed with regard to precedent. The only safe way forward would be for the football project to re-establish the standard in WP:Corp or, as an alternative, write a guideline page WP:Football (soccer). TerriersFan 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I love the spirit of teams like these, however it fails WP:CORP. --Angelo 02:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - did you not read the comments about WP:CORP being uncitable for this (above)? Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - no, WP:CORP can still be quoted, only not in the definite clear guideline of must be at level 1-10. Other bits of that policy/guideline may still apply, i.e. lack of multiple secondary sources etc. - fchd 16:30, 12 June 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.