Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wareham Rangers F.C.

< 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 KEEP Wareham Rangers F.C., Old Chelmsfordians F.C., Tuffley Rovers F.C., Lydd Town F.C., Sheppey United F.C., The Wilberforce Wanderers AFC, Murton F.C., Middle Barton F.C., and Watton United F.C., and DELETE Bradfield Rovers F.C., Buckhurst Hill F.C., Magna 73 F.C., FC Assyria, Long Crendon F.C., SKS Blyskawica F.C., and Westlecot United F.C. All this was kind of hard to sort out. Basically, there were only one or two commentors that wanted to Delete all of the articles, and only one or two that wanted to Keep all of the articles. Most of the discussion was around which articles to keep and which to delete, and there were scarcely any two commentors with the same list. So, I retained all articles that had any support, and deleted only those articles that had no support (beyond the Keep All commentors). Herostratus 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wareham Rangers F.C.

edit

Fails WP:CORP, at 12th position, notability for English football clubs is 10th position. For the same reason, also up for deletion in this nomination: Bradfield Rovers F.C., Old Chelmsfordians F.C., Tuffley Rovers F.C., Buckhurst Hill F.C., Lydd Town F.C., Sheppey United F.C., Magna 73 F.C., FC Assyria, The Wilberforce Wanderers AFC, Murton F.C., Long Crendon F.C., Middle Barton F.C., Watton United F.C., SKS Blyskawica F.C., Westlecot United F.C. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to point out that this entry is notable for more than simply the level of football played by the team in question. The club's FA supported tour of Malawi during the summer has generated national and international press coverage, with an additional article due to be published in the Guardian Travel section in the near future.

As part of a FIFA initiative, each African Football Association is twinned with a European equivalent, on which it can call for support in its development. Malawi's allocated partner is England. A major responsibility that can be taken on by the clubs and individuals who sit within the structure of the English FA, is that of raising awareness of football in Malawi, and the role it can play in assisting the country's development. In my opinion, the Wilberforce Wanderers tour of Malawi can contribute to this goal, and therefore should be maintained on the site.

Furthermore, at a time when international sporting relationships are visibly fraying (as is the case with the current animosity between Pakistan and the ICC) the publicity generated by the Wilberforce Wanderers' tour of Malawi can only serve to re-inforce the idea of sport as a force for uniting, rather than dividing, the world community, regardless of any cultural or economic differences.

I hope you will take these comments into consideration. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.169.132.70 (talk • contribs) .(User's sole contribution is to this AfD) --Wafulz 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No verifiable references have been provided for the above claim. Qwghlm 11:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wareham Rangers, Lydd Town, Sheppey United, Murton, Middle Barton, Old Chelmsfordians, and Tuffley Rovers because all those clubs have recently played at a level considered notable. Keep Wilberforce Wanderers per previous comments. Weak Delete on the rest. --Balerion 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Old Chelmsfordians recently played in the Essex Olympian League, which, while Step 7, is effectively a 10th level league because it is a direct feeder to the level 9 Essex Senior League. Furthermore, it was agreed that EOL Division One clubs are inherently notable. Wareham Rangers were just relegated from the Dorset Premier League, which is Step 7/level 11, but is co-feeder to the Wessex League Division One with the Wessex League Division Two (in which all clubs are considered notable). DPL clubs seem to be considered notable as they all have pages and there is a template. Up until a few years ago, the DPL was a direct feeder the Wessex League before the WL expanded. It has sent Hamworthy United F.C., Shaftesbury (Dorset) F.C., and Sherborne Town F.C. to higher levels within the last three years, so it's certainly a Step 7 league with some standing. As such, Wareham Rangers' long-term participation in the league until their relegation last season should merit notability. --Balerion 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DPL clubs seem to be considered notable as they all have pages and there is a template. - Because someone created articles for [almost] all of the teams and created a template as well, that does not equal notability. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per OzLawyer ST47 18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for reasons given above. I do not agree that the Malawi tour is notable, any more than e.g. the many church choirs who tour to often exotic parts are notable for doing that. If any of the teams can be shown to have made an impact historically at level 10 or above, then I would reconsider for them, but it does not appear that that is the case. Robotforaday 18:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do you define "historical impact"? --Balerion 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to illustrate it with an unlikely example, if Manchester United or Arsenal were relegated to below level 10, then obviously they should retain their articles because in the past, they had won major trophies and been extremely well known. This case can be made at a lower level as well, I feel: for example, I recently voted to keep South Liverpool F.C. because I felt that a team that had won the Welsh Cup (beating a professional club in the final) was notable enough to merit its article because of that historical achievement. Robotforaday 17:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Wilberforce Wanderers The Wilberforce Wanderers played in what was considered an international friendly on this tour, the game was attended by the Malawian FA president and overseen by 4 full FIFA officials.In particular the ADMARC tigers side contain a number of current full internationals (R Gonani, V Gona amongst others). I understand that playing against international opposition with the last 12 months coresponds to playing at a level well above 'level 10' of the English game and hence the club must be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.142.219 (talk • contribs)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Wilberforce Wanderers Level 10 is an arbitrary cut off for club notoriety. There are plenty of clubs playing at that level and above that have done significantly less for the game of football than Wilberforce have done with their Malawian tour.
  • Keep Murton, Middle Barton, Sheppey and Tuffley because of past participation at higher level - delete all the rest including Wilberforce Wanderers. - fchd 10:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wilberforce Wanderers Notable as I and the Oxford English dictionary define it means worthy of note or notice. The reference to level 10 and above of the English game is a simple and crude proxy for this assessment, but is clearly no replica for a full understanding of a clubs presence. As I see it, the Times and shortly the Guardian will see fit to take notice of The Wilberforce Wanderers, and record their exploits which is more than can be said for the majority of those clubs operating at level 10. I would trust these mainstays of the English media as a better judge of what is worthy of note than any simple proxy.
  • I see that Robotforaday has completely missed the point with his comment. The reference to notability is not based on simply going on tour as choirs could equally do, but is based on being recognised as worthy of note from an independent body, in this case the national press. Any choirs who the national press see fit to report on are also very deserving of a place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.142.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment It's one thing to say that details about the tour have been published (verifiable) and quite another to say that they will be published (unverifiable). If indeed this does get national press coverage, then that is a different matter, but at the moment we're still talking about 'ifs', as I understand it. Robotforaday 09:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Murton, Middle Barton, Sheppey and Tuffley. Delete the rest, especially Wilberforce Wanderers - all claims to its notability are unverifiable and possibly constitute a hoax. Qwghlm 11:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentre the comments above- if you actually check the wanderers page on Wikipedia you will see the link to the Times article, published last week. I presume that this will be then accepted as a different matter then. This is clearly verifiable for those who make the effort to check their facts before they comment
It looks like you had a lovely holiday. However, getting a single article in the Times travel section does not make you notable - if it were the sports section, on the other hand, I'd be a lot more inclined to agree. Qwghlm 11:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A travel article written by a member of the team hardly counts as what you were referring to, i.e. an article reporting on the tour. I did indeed check that and felt it wasn't any more notable than any other group of tourists who write an article in the paper about how nice their trip was. Robotforaday 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Wareham Rangers, Lydd Town, Sheppey United, Murton, Middle Barton, Old Chelmsfordians, Tuffley Rovers, and Wilberforce Wanderers per balerion and merge the rest to a list Yuckfoo 18:52, 30 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wareham_Rangers_F.C.&oldid=1068834173"