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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Polesworth F.C.

Polesworth F.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN as the team has not played at level 10 or in the FA Vase or FA Cup. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Another episode of my hard work been put up for deletion, makes all the hard work worthwhile doesn't it, exactly what constitutes an article, as I can name millions of semi-professional/amateur teams that have an article, so please explain why you want this one deleted!! Stew jones ( talk) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC) reply

For one, there are no sources other than links to the official webpage and the club shop. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - its unfortunate that someone spent time creating something only for it to be deleted, but the shame is that someone spent time creating something that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. I could create articles about each of the football teams in my local area but none of them would meet the inclusion criteria and so all of them would be deleted. Do the research, then the work. Don't do the work and then plead for mercy. The burden is on the creator to substantiate notability. While the nominator of an article for deletion should ideally justify that nomination, that has been done in this case. Over the the article's proponents to establish why this should stay. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 07:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - does not pass WP:GNG and has not played at a sufficient sporting level. Giant Snowman 11:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per nom, fails WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 11:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete, with condolences to the creator. Continue the hard work, but best to learn the notability criteria first. TheBlueCanoe 12:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN as has not played in a national competition. no indication of GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 15:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (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.