Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangor Celtic F.C.


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bangor Celtic F.C.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - not only plays at level 4 in the Irish pyramid, which emerging consensus indicates as the threshold for notability, but they are the current champions of that division. The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as TerriersFan says, level 4 of the Irish football league is notable enough. GiantSnowman 18:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - if this is a notable level to be playing at, there should be 3rd party references where the team is the subject of the coverage, could you add some?--RadioFan (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google News provides quite a few hits, which I believe would be enough to pass WP:GNG. Bettia   (talk)  08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments. BigDunc  20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have even watched them a bit on TV in a summer friendly match! Govvy (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment a count of Google hits doesn't do much to demonstrate notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources does.  Just not seeing that here.  Since this is a amateur team, no presumption of notability can be made, the references need to be there.--RadioFan (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (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.