Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hood Athletic Football Club

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood Athletic Football Club

edit
Robin Hood Athletic Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur club which has never played in the FA Cup or in the top 10 levels of the English football league system, the usual rule of thumb used by WP:FOOTY. DOesn't pass WP:GNG either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not clear as to why you have said that my article does not pass WP:GNG given that I wrote the article using two different sources rather than just relying on a website devoted to the football club.(Rillington (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Note I think that should say "top 10 levels of the English football league system" or "7 steps of the National League System". -- KTC (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I am not at all familiar with the UK footbal divisions but the article states the club plays in the West Yorkshire League. This league has an article. Is the League itself notable? If it is, are the clubs that play in it notable? The league shows several teams with articles. Are any of these as notable (or not) as Robin Hood? Seems to me if one goes to AfD all of them should too. The teams are:
Guidance from people versant in UK League structure is required. -- Alexf(talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
West Yorkshire is at Level 11/12, which is notwhere near the bottom of the English football league system, which appears to go down to Level 24 (Level 21 for a top division), and all of them are blue link. But that's just the league itself and not the teams. For the teams (or footballer etc.), it should be noted the usual articles standard are whether they have ever played in a high enough level, and not where they are now. (This doesn't matter for Robin Hood AFC whose article suggest they've played on the same league its entire history. -- KTC (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Westella shows in the Central Midlands Football League which is different but may have the same issue, with it and all its clubs. We need a review of this issue by people knowledgeable with UK Football. -- Alexf(talk) 18:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, both the CML and the WYL promote into the Northern Counties League as they are at the same level of the English footballing pyramid although the CML promotes more clubs into the NCEL than the WYL. To add one more point, I had intended to write articles for all the teams in the CML given that some teams already have articles, assuming there was enough material to source for information. However, since this discussion about deleting a WYL article, and now even a hint possibly questioning whether one of my CML articles should be deleted, I have refrained from writing any more articles as I'm not going to put in time to write articles only for people to suggest that they are deleted. Should it be decided to retain the Robin Hood FC article then I will look to complete the CML project whereas if it is decided to delete this, and any of my CML articles for that matter, then it is highly unlikely that I would make any further contributions to Wikipedia.(Rillington (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Four of the seven clubs mentioned above by Alexf and League Octopus either play in higher-level leagues but field their reserve teams in the WYL, or else have played in higher level leagues in previous seasons, so their situation is not the same as Robin Hood Athletic. Two of the seven are former WYL clubs who moved up to higher levels years ago. And Westella & Willerby aren't mentioned on the WYL article at all......?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly new to editing and to producing articles and given that some CML clubs already had a wikipedia article, I had intended to complete the set assuming each club had a website. The reason I produced an article on Robin Hood FC was because there was already a link to the club's website and it seemed logical to put together a wikipedia article especially as one other team in the WYL already has a wikipedia article, as has a club playing in a neighbouring league, the Humber Premier League, which is actually one stage lower than both the CML and the WYL in the footballing pyramid. It would be very disappointing if the articles I have produced, and I did research them properly and included references, were to be deleted. In fact I wouldn't be inclined to make any further efforts to put in the effort to produce new articles, only to see them deleted.(Rillington (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - Don't take it personally as it has nothing to do with you or your abilities. We simply have to follow the rules. There are notability rules for footy articles. Because the article is not bad per se, and not obviously or blatantly non-notable, it has not gone to speedy deletion but to AfD so the community can comment. Please make your voice heard. Read the pertinent rules, linked in the comments here and make your comments based on policy. Don't despair. Many of us (myself included) have had articles in AfD or PROD at one time or another. Some stayed, some were deleted. That's the way Wikipedia works. -- Alexf(talk) 01:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for that Alex. I'll try not to take it personally. I will start by conceding that the CML and the WYL is at level 11 so therefore it could be argued that all of my football articles should be deleted along with others already written which would leave the CML with some clubs having articles and others not which, looks rather odd and suggests the question to those who do not participate why some clubs have articles and others do not. All I wanted to do was to ensure that all the clubs in the CML, if possible, do have articles as the CML is a good standard and is a regional league rather than a local league and I was attempting to complete that task and have now put this task on hold. It is worth stating that some of the articles already there had featured clubs which had not previously been at level 10 and these had not been proposed for deletion although I see that an article for a HPL club, playing at level 12, has now been proposed for deletion. Frankly I think this uniform cut-off is tight and should be flexible to ensure that leagues do not have the situation whereby some clubs have articles and some do not. Finally, but equally important, surely people who make the effort to take time to produce articles should not see them deleted if they are factually accurate and contain material which is verifyable from elsewhere, and all my CML articles fit that criteria.(Rillington (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong| verbalize _ 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, hasn't played at a notable level. GiantSnowman 18:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is inevitable that my article is going to be deleted, no matter what I might say in defence of retaining it, so maybe it's best to put me out of misery? I think this decision is at best tight and frankly really rather mean, especially given I'm a new contributor. Things like this shouldn't be so mandatory and if people are prepared to make the effort and spend the time in writing articles, this should be recognised. I now have to make the decision whether or not to complete the project I began last week to write articles for the clubs in the Central Midlands League. Right now, I'm not inclined to following this debate as to whether to delete my article about Robin Hood FC which, for the record, was researched properly. (Rillington (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of an appearance in the FA Cup and a general failure of GNG is enough for me. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone please explain to me why a properly researched article with references, which people want to delete, is a "failure of GNG"?(Rillington (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    Comment - From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The article, as it stands, only has one external ref, to F.C.H.D. which is not even an article but a list pointing to some playing stats. The other is the club's own website. Not enough independent reliable sources. -- Alexf(talk) 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think that's really tight. As I said, I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and would hope that I'd find encouragement and support and not to immediately find an article which I've taken the time to research and write being deleted just a few days after registering.(Rillington (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sorry, Rillington, but this club is not notable, and in my opinion we are already pretty flexible when it comes to English clubs, but stretching it longer then level 10 is a bit much. Also fails WP:GNG. Next time you write an article, you could check out if the club has played at level 10 before you start. Keep up the good work! ;) Mentoz86 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hood_Athletic_Football_Club&oldid=1138310607"