Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brislington 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. v/r - TP 00:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Brislington F.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable amateur football club, no references to satisfy WP:ORG. Prod declined Jezhotwells (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This meets the guidelines without a doubt - see WikiProject Football/Notability. Out of interest, why did you single out this article instead of the many other articles of clubs at the same level? Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: In what way does this club meet the essay on football notability: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria."? I see no refences to this club having played in the FA Cup, which is the national cup for England. Oh, and I don't think any of the clubs you mention meet the notability guidelines either. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. They played in the FA Cup last Saturday, and have done for every season since 1995. . All teams of this level play in the FA Cup.. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They may compete in preliminary or qualifying rounds, so do hundreds of others. The haven't competed at 1st Round or better level. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those hundreds of others are also notable. Take a look at 2010–11 FA Cup qualifying rounds. Every team has its own article. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? What matters here is can anyone demonstrate that this club meets the notability guideline, WP:ORG. We need reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the article subject. The essay that you quoted above is just an essay, not a guideline or a policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's why my first argument was based on its notability according to that essay, although I believe that it is a valid argument in this case. That essay is a pretty accurate reflection of the consensus on articles like these, and the existence of all those articles on the FA Cup page is proof of that. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - has played in the national cup, seems notable to me. GiantSnowman 13:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. This team isn't some random small Sunday team, it is a professional club in an established league, on levels 9-10 of the English football leagues system. Fallschirmjäger &#9993; 14:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any evidence that it is a professional club? The article has an uncited assertion that it fields a semi-professiona side. And playing in rounds to qualify for the FA Cup is not the same as playing in the FA Cup. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a professional club, but is certainly not amateur either. In the FA cup, the qualifying rounds are considered to be part of the competition. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutral – I get what you mean by passing WP:GNG what with references being very space about this club apart from the official website, but particularly in the cases of English lower-league football, the essay at WikiProject Football/Notability often trumps WP:GNG as it is assumed that if a team has played in the FA Cup or at the 10th level (no matter what point in history, even if level 10 clubs at the time couldn't apply for the FA Cup) then it already passes WP:GNG. Despite the fact that this is demonstrably a false assumption and it means we end up with a stub articles about teams that once played in the Extra Preliminary round of the 1926 FA Cup (read: bunch of guys that got together and applied to play in a cup competition together) and automatically get an article. Extreme example, but this is what it creates. However, it usually saves a lot of arguing. I voted keep as it definately passes general consensus (albeit one that I personally think should change to account for anomalies). Delusion23 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no references, just an external link to the club website, a primary source, and an external link to a site hosted on a btinternet personal home page. There are no citations of WP:RS providing substantial coverage of the club. Essays do not trump the notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'd be interested in seeing a discussion about how this team actually passes WP:GNG and not just passes WP:FootyN. I've switched to neutral. Delusion23 (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I have seen you have tagged the Football History Database as an unreliable source when in fact it's the major "go to" source for any information about non-league and defunct football teams in use on Wikipedia... Delusion23 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not meet the guidelines for reliable sources, it is a personal web site, hosted by btinternet.co.uk which is no longer maintained by Richard Rendle since 2006. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For info, it has in fact been accepted as a reliable source at literally dozens of FLCs under WP:SPS. See here for a case where, a known authority on reliable sources, confirms it as acceptable.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I find that surprising, as the policy that you cite says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Surely this information is available in "reliable third-party publications". As it stands this article relies totally on the club's own web site and a self published source, which may or may not be accurate.  No evidence has been produced to show that Richard Rendle is an established expert.  There is nothing here to satisfy the WP:GNG. If there is no substantial coverage by WP:RS, then clearly the subject is not notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have discovered another serious concern. The article as it stood at 8 September 2011 was a direct cut and paste from a document on the Toolstation Western League website, authored by JackRog, presumably Jack Rogers, the club Programme and Website Manager. This Word document is written on the clubs own notepaper. Although the article text has since been trimmed, it is still a close paraphrase of the original and thus a copyright violation. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An earlier version of the document was archived by the Internet archive on 12 October 2007. And this material was introduced to the article by User:Jackrog, who definitely has a clear conflict of interest, on 27 October 2008. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How does he have a conflict of interest? It's perfectly OK for someone to edit an article on a subject they are involved with, as long as it's written from a neutral point of view. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that those with a conflict of interest may edit articles carefully, but the material added by this editor was rather promotional in tone, as well as being a clear copyright violation, although the worst excesses have since been removed by others. The close paraphrasing issue does remain as well as the lack of reliable sources. This article does not meet the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I misunderstanding something? He submitted material, which is found elsewhere on the web, but the evidence points towards him being the original author. It's not a "clear copyright violation", more like a "possible copyright violation". We should contact him to find out before making such statements. I will look into contacting him tomorrow, if no one does it before then. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The material is published on a website with a clear copyright notice: "Copyright ©2011 Western Football League Ltd., Unless Otherwise Stated. All Rights Reserved." If he wishes to donate the material then he will need to publish it under a suitable copyleft license. Details of how to go about this can be found at WP:PERMISSION. Wikipedia is very careful about copyright issues. All Wikipedia material is available to anyone to use under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL. So we can't have copyright material on this project. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding content to a Wikipedia article means releasing your content under the appropriate licenses. There are clear warnings above the submit button. As long as it was his content to release, there is no problem. This is not a clear copyright violation. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if it has been published elsewhere with a copyright notice as noted above. Following the receipt of an email from the company secretary of the Toolstation Western League, the copyright violations have been removed. Full details and the email on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Club meets the notability criteria set by numerous AfDs (probably close to 30 now). I have also removed the "unreliable source" tag on the FCHD - it's not unreliable and ChrisTheDude provides the reasoning (and link) above. Number   5  7  13:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate, but you show it meets the usual criteria for FOOTYN, but does the article actually meet WP:GNG? The team doesn't seem to have had significant independent coverage. Delusion23 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 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.