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 Keep per clear consensus. Michig ( talk) 06:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

White Ensign F.C.

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

White Ensign 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)

Non-notable footy club. No sources to demonstrate notability except the Untouchables article from 2007. No additional coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject have surfaced since the AfD in 2008. [1] They might be playing in a very slightly higher league now than they were in 2008, but there are no guidelines for subject specific notability for sports teams; they are still required to meet the General Notability Guideline. I originally CSDed this article as a previously deleted article, under G4, but others thought that the league change was enough that G4 was not appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Club now plays at step 6, and consensus from dozens of previous AfDs (a few examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) is that this is sufficient to make the club notable. I was the nominator in the original AfD when they did not meet this criteria. Number 5 7 08:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you can't speedy keep on that. Guidelines clearly state that teams must meet the GNG. While Step 6 or above might be an indication that clubs may meet the GNG, that does not appear to be the case with this club. There is no guideline that states that playing at step 6 or above confers some sort of automatic notability. Of your six examples: the ones that were kept met the GNG, the ones that were deleted did not, and generally !voters were clear in all the discussions that sources were either available or lacking, while some !votes mentioned 'generally accepted criteria', these are not part of any policy or guideline that I could find. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 08:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be a valid or invalid argument in a deletion debate. It's a valid rationale when you're arguing (for instance) that all other clubs at this level have articles (which they do, aside from a few others who have just been promoted and no-one has created them yet).
While you're correct that this is not explicitly written in a guideline, it's more because it's overly specific (each country would have a different cutoff point). It was previously listed in WP:NCORP, but was removed as being unnecessarily specific. Since then I don't think anyone has ever felt the need to readd it, given the fact that very few editors have ever had a problem with the situation. However, I think the mentions of it in the numerous AfDs clearly demonstrate that the rule remains in place. I don't believe an article on a club playing at step 6 has ever been deleted. Number 5 7 08:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I suspect very few editors have had a problem because the 'cuttoff point' that you speak of generally coincides with meeting or not meeting the GNG with sources. In this case it does not though, and the GNG trumps any kind of common practice in walled gardens. Per Govvy, they haven't actually played in that division yet anyway, perhaps when they have there will be additional coverage and they will meet the GNG. In the meantime, there isn't sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 09:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comments I ran a bit quick yesterday, as I really don't like speedy deletions, @ Insertcleverphrasehere: I believe articles with any citations available and that have had a long period before being recreated should be given a fair trial and shouldn't ever be speedy deleted. Anyway, from looking at previous AfD and thefa.com website they registered two years ago to play in the FA Vase for the first time in the clubs existence, but they failed FA ground rules policy by having no lights. I am surprised there is no local news source for this on the article. If that issue with their ground has been fixed and the fact they gained promotion they will most likely have to register this coming season, this gives them a chance to enter FA Vase or FA Cup again. If we are going by the criteria that they need to play in an FA sanctioned cup competition to pass then they currently still fail Wikipedia guidelines to have an article. That could change by August know, but that's playing WP:CRYSTAL. Govvy ( talk) 09:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Govvy: The criteria is playing at step 6, or in the FA Cup/Trophy/Vase. There are some clubs that have only achieved the former (usually clubs at step 6 without lights) and some the latter (the few that enter the Vase from step 7). If for whatever reason Ensign resign from the league before the season starts, I'll happily delete the article. However, for now they're part of a step 6 league. Number 5 7 09:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If this one goes, that's dozens of other step 6 club articles that would have to follow. As Number 57 has said, I've never seen a step 6 club article deleted before. Why this particular one, out of interest? It seems like the main criteria being used here is that someone erroneously thought White Ensign were notable back in 2008 so the article was rightly deleted back then. There are several step 6 clubs who meet GNG who hadn't even been founded then. OGLV ( talk) 09:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ OGLV: That depends, most step 6 clubs also meet the GNG, so there would be no reason to delete. Why this particular one? Because it doesn't currently have sufficient sourcing to meet the general notability guideline. The guidelines are clear that there are no subject specific notability criteria or 'automatic' notability for teams, they must meet the GNG with sourcing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 09:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note to closer: Number 57 is the creator of the article and Govvy declined CSD Hhkohh ( talk) 09:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. Well, you deleted some of our clubs playing on much higher level than this one... Linhart ( talk) 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
WikiProjects should not just make up notability guidelines that directly contradict established guidelines. WP:NSPORT clearly states that teams must meet the GNG, and WP:NCORP specifically excludes teams. This is a disturbing result and indicates that a walled garden is developing amongst football editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 19:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
As noted above, it was once included in a project-wide notability guideline (WP:NCORP), but was removed for being too specific. Number 5 7 19:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
The entire NCORP guideline was rewritten a few months ago through extended discussion, and teams were specifically excluded from the guideline by consensus. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 19:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources. All I could find are stats listings or personal blogs. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams defers to GNG for sports team notability. As for the cited WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that step 6 clubs are notable, that was just formally added to the WikiProject essay on 2 June. [2]— Bagumba ( talk) 11:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per established consensus, its best to be consistent considering the variations at afd, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Number 57. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:32, 5 July 2018 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Ensign_F.C._(2nd_nomination)&oldid=849326301"