Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attleborough Potters


 * 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. m.o.p 05:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Attleborough Potters

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sunday league football club with no assertion of notability per WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. Can't find coverage of them online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from a few mentions in the local press, and no indication that they're notable nationally. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Filing Flunky (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Attleborough Potters in a NATIONAL newspaper. The last ever edition of the newspaper in July 2011 sold approximately 4.5 million copies.
 * Despite realising that the club is not an international superpower of football like a Manchester United or a Barcelona, it is the second most supported club in the town of Nuneaton, with higher attendances, fanbase, sponsorship and links to the local community than other clubs which you have permitted to have an article on wikipedia. The club has very strong ties within its local town, it's predecessor suffered financial problems forcing the village to lose its only club for the first time since the Second World War. This was more than a football team, this was the hub of village activity, so when the village lost its sporting focal point, due to popular demand, the club was reformed and reborn.
 * I would hope that "notable nationally" is not the only reason for your deletion notice, how much local and regional expertise, knowledge and information could be lost for the sake of not looking at the bigger picture? You guys don't know every intrinsic detail about every small town and village across the world, but the people that live there do and they wish to share their knowledge, history, heritage and information with the wider world by using the internet and using wikipedia.
 * Also please dont call the club, a sunday league football club, we have many teams, saturdays too and affiliations with junior teams and charity teams. This is a community club, not a generic park/pub football team.
 * Please list your onjections here and provide advice that will allow me to pass your criteria and I will gladly do all that is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also please dont call the club, a sunday league football club, we have many teams, saturdays too and affiliations with junior teams and charity teams. This is a community club, not a generic park/pub football team.
 * Please list your onjections here and provide advice that will allow me to pass your criteria and I will gladly do all that is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please list your onjections here and provide advice that will allow me to pass your criteria and I will gladly do all that is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please list your onjections here and provide advice that will allow me to pass your criteria and I will gladly do all that is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that I meant no disrespect by calling your club a Sunday league club: it was the most concise description I could think of.
 * Regarding definitions, "notable nationally" isn't from my own definition of what's notable, but was lifted from WP:CLUB (emphasis mine):
 * "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:"
 * "1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale."


 * "2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources."


 * "Additional considerations are:"


 * "* Nationally famous local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead."


 * "* Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive."


 * Thanks for the NOTW link: that is indeed a national paper, though that particular article is only a passing mention of the team in conjunction with the award of a prize by the paper, and teams at the level of Nuneaton District Sunday League do not receive regular coverage in any UK national papers, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide whether that's incidental coverage or evidence of national notability for the team. Filing Flunky (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable club; hasn't played at a high enough level, also lacks significant coverage. GiantSnowman 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/ATTLEBOV.HTM - Please see the link. Our towns club under its former guise was in the Midland Combination achieving promotion in its first season. Wikipedia already has a number of clubs on wikipedia that played at a similar level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are currently 22 clubs from the Midland Combination that are represented on wikipedia. Attleborough also played at this level, what is the difference? Are Bromsgrove Sporting or Pilkington XXX nationally recognised footballing teams? I accept that we are not in the national newspapers regularly, but neither are many others, surely we should see some consistency... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed, Bromsgrove Sporting F.C. and Pilkington XXX F.C. should probably be nominated for deletion on the same grounds of notability. Filing Flunky (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why stop there? There are 22 teams at this level that aren't household names on a national stage or national scope. With that logic, why not just nominate all clubs outside of the national Premier League's for deletion? Attleborough has history that predates living memory and the club under its many guises would predate the vast majority of living persons. The fantasitc history and heritage or club and community sets this club apart. It's impact on a regional level is dramatic. Unfortunately, I doubt you are in a position to understand this, commenting and speculating without visitting but I welcome you to see for yourself any stage, this should give you a more informed point of view based on what is known and not what is assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're arguing that "by excluding Attleborough, you should logically exclude everything outside of Premier League", then the counterargument would be "if you're including Attleborough, then you should include all football clubs, including school teams and company five-a-side clubs". Neither argument makes sense. A rough boundary of notability needs to be drawn somewhere for organisations, and it's a matter of WP:Consensus where the line is currently drawn. That's always open to debate, and the argument can always be made on a policy talk page: the pages on which to make that argument would probably be Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Filing Flunky (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm arguing that you are penalising Attlebrorough but not penalising similar organisations in similar situations. Your argument was that we hadn't played at a high enough level to be worthy of an article on wikipedia. I have provided proof that we have played at the same level as other clubs that already have an article on wikipedia. Instead of being petty and considering mass deleting numerous clubs to bring everyone into line, why not take logical and glaringly obvious step and bring allow my club to be represented on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - for info, the Wikipedia football project has long used a rule of thumb that clubs who play at a level which makes them eligible to enter the FA Cup are notable enough for an article. This club has not played at such a level, even in its previous incarnation (assuming the two clubs are definitely one and the same).  Hope this helps..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, at least it seems you have a form of structure for your reasoning. However, I must add that Midland Combination clubs often feature in FA competitions. Also does the eligibility to post an article depend on league status alone? If a team got relegated and were no longer eligible for FA competitions would you mark their page for deletion? Also the clubs are not one and the same, Potters were formed to replace the void left by Village. Similar to when AFC Telford replaced Telford United and Nuneaton Town replaced Nuneaton Borough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only clubs from the top division of the MidComb are eligible for the FA Cup, not the lower divisions. And no, an article would not be deleted if a team dropped below that level - notability is not temporary.  The only way in which a club which has never played at that level would normally have an article is if an exceptional level of coverage in reliable third-party sourced could be proven -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly do you need from me to get this article online? The club effects the region far more than many local clubs. How can that be proven? If I show articles in local news you guys will play the "national" card. If I show a NOTW article, it's not frequent enough. What you are asking me to prove seems unlikely to be found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources found to meet the notability guidelines in WP:CLUB, per ChrisTheDude's reasoning. I'm afraid it is highly unlikely you will be able demonstrate notability from the sources available. Routine coverage of local clubs' fixtures in the local papers isn't enough - there would have to be an exceptional amount of coverage. Had there been more stories like the News of the World one, that would have counted, but a one-off mention is not substantial coverage. The only other thing I can suggest is that offline sources count just as strongly as online sources - it's just difficult to prove. But if there are not enough sources out there to meet the notability criteria, then Wikipedia is not the place for an article about this club. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So what would you advise as an offline source? I can get written testimonies, video footage of local opinions and the clubs influence? Im getting lots of negative rejections but not a lot of people actually trying to be constructive and help to understand to see what the club is about, but assuming we're a "pub team" or "work 5aside" team from a screen far away from the region of influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.0.144 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, all sources, whether online or offline, needs to have some sort of editorial control, be independent of the subject of the article, and be objective and not subjective. Good offline sources are newspaper articles (if not already online) and books. Written testimonies and video footage are unlikely to have much weight (unless it was part of a publication/production by an independent body) any more than comments of forums of Facebook wall posts. The thing is, anyone can get 20 of their mates to say how important their favourite club or society is, but it doesn't prove anything. Attleborough Potters might be the most important non-league club in the West Midlands for all I know, but without coverage in reliable sources to back this up, any claims of what the cluib is about are unverified, and Wikipedia isn't the place for unverified information, no matter how certain the writer feels it is correct. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:CLUB and WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no proof has been provided that this club is notable. There are plenty of football clubs actively involved in their community, but that doesn't necessarily make them worthy of coverage by a worldwide encyclopedia. As Chris Neville-Smith notes, one of the key requirements of Wikipedia is that information is verifiable, ad no verifiable information has been provided. If Chrisshipley believes that this club that has never played at a high enough level to be considered notable by the policies reached by Wikipedia they should look at Senrab F.C. or Wallsend Boys Club to see examples of clubs that are notable despite never having competed at such a level. This might help outline the type of evidence of notability that is required. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I checked Wallsend Boys Club and the referencing is pretty weak. Best tag it. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wallsend Boys Club .. to see examples of clubs that are notable despite never having competed at such a level. This might help outline the type of evidence of notability that is required. Wallsend FC"
 * Wallsend have two sources, one of them is there own website and one from their local county FA! I can give you a plethora of links from the clubs website and one from the NOTW, surely this superseeds what you have already passed as acceptable for another club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote "the referencing is pretty weak". I think that most editors would agree that Wallsend Boys Club is notable, but this does need to be proved with reliable sources. I suspect that these may be found, but not for Attleborough Potters. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Slightly off-topic, but I've added some reliable sources to Wallsend Boys Club, including from BBC & Telegraph. A few of the new refs just mention that club in passing as where some famous footballers started out, but several are articles about the club. This is the kind of significant coverage that would support notability for Attleborough Potters. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (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.