Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cfcuk


 * 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. JForget 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Cfcuk

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nonnotable fanzine for English football club. No sources cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The magazine/site is mentioned in passing a few times in newspapers, e.g. 1, 2, and 3, but only in passing in the context, "Dave Johnstone, the editor of CFCuk fanzine said ...."  As to the article's claim that the magazine used to be called "Matthew Harding's Blue And White Army," I can find plenty of evidence that "Blue and White Army" is a fan chant for Chelsea, but none that it was the predecessor of this fanzine.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The following remarks were left on my talk page after I wrote the above comment.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 21:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fanzine was formerly called "Matthew Harding's Blue And White Army" and is registered in the archives of the British Library. ::The front cover of EVERY edition of the cfcuk fanzine has the following printed upon it...


 * "Formerly Matthew Harding’s Blue And White Army, cfcuk is published in memory of Matthew Harding"


 * The above information also appears on the following link;


 * http://www.transparentsport.com/cfcuk/page.php?pname=cfcuk%20Fanzine


 * The fanzine is 'notable' because, while other clubs' fanzines cost £1.50 or even £2, the cfcuk price has always beeb and always will remain at just £1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - can I just say that "being cheaper than its competitors" is possibly the weakest claim to notability I've ever seen......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can :)  Bettia  (talk)  15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can find no evidence that this fanzine meets general notability guidelines.  Bettia  (talk)  15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

The text on the cfcuk entry was changed a couple of days ago. If you look at the log for Nawlin you will see when. Unfortunately, it seems I (mis)used the word 'notable', using it in 'general terms' rather than its use by way of Wikipedia terms.

As far as we are aware, the cfcuk fanzine is the ONLY Premier League and Championship fanzine which has a cover price of £1 which is regularly published (at least 12 issues per season)

Perhaps the word ‘unusual’ should have been a better choice for the first attempted entry as I suspect / hope this furore would not have occurred. As I said, the entry was changed the other day and I hope that the changes meet your criteria.

The ‘offending’ chapter of the article NOW reads;

“The cfcuk fanzine is unusual amongst football fanzines as it is now one of the only football fanzines that does not feature a full colour front cover and is famed for the fact that it only costs £1. It is on sale at every Chelsea Football Club 1st team match at home, away and abroad.”

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. Being archived at the British Library is not an indicator of notability, as the Library is supposed to archive copies of all UK publications whether they sell only two or over twenty thousand copies. I cannot check what is said in the sole reference, but would imagine that it would be not much more than a one-liner, given the scope of the work. Quote: "it is now one of the only football fanzines that does not feature a full colour front cover and is famed for the fact that it only costs £1." - hardly a real claim to notability in my eyes. Come on - prove me wrong. Produce some other references that are easier to check and probably) say more. Even, possibly, quote to us what is said. I would think that would count as fair use in this discussion. (Anyone: correct me if I am wrong there...) Peridon (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability issues, insufficient sourcing, COI on behalf of creator. Glass  Cobra  05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of general notability. Haven't found any non-trivial mentions of the fanzine, the site or their editor in the mainstream media. Incidentally, its cover price isn't uniquely low among regularly-produced fanzines. The Birmingham City fanzine Made in Brum, new issue for every home game since 2000, also costs "only a pound", as its sellers make very loud and clear :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Struwaay2

It doesn't read 'uniquely low' but reads as follows; "The cfcuk fanzine is unusual amongst football fanzines as it is now one of the only football fanzines that does not feature a full colour front cover and is famed for the fact that it only costs £1."

cfcuk is mentioned (credited) in two of Mark Worrall's books – “One Man Went To Mow” and “Chelsea Here Chelsea There”, is mentioned in many web links including these below.

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/chelsea/information.htm

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/article-23657906-football-talk.do

and is even mentioned on the Official Chelsea FC website by way of the following quote, “David Johnstone, known to many Chelsea supporters through his cfcuk fanzine, describes himself as playing the Makelele role in the book's creation. He adds: 'That goal, along with Peter Osgood's in the 1970 Cup Final replay, is one of the most iconic in Chelsea history. The whole club - players and supporters - all there in that one moment of magic.” (link below)

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~1814929,00.html

The following link below refers to the fact that former Chelsea, Manchester Utd (amongst others) and Wales star Mickey Thomas is a regular contributor

http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/main/s379/st136373.htm

While the following link refers to cfcuk as in its use by someone who completed an Masters (MA) thesis;

http://www.diplom.de/.../Football_Fanzines_and_Cultures_of_Memory.html

It even gets a mention on the following web pages;

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-football-factory-film-1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Forget-greasy-pie--Chelsea-football-fans-dining-Marcos-45-fish-chip-supper.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article326741.ece

There are, if one ‘Googles’ cfcuk, plenty of other mentions but I wouldn’t want to risk boring you (any more than I have done already) by listing any more.

Apart from what I have already written, I don’t know what else I can do to satisfy the Wikipedia criteria. That said, I hope that those asking for the cfcuk fanzine to be deleted from the Wikipedia pages are not doing so because of an anti-Chelsea bias…

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello :-) my comment about the cover price was in reply to yours higher up, that "As far as we are aware, the cfcuk fanzine is the ONLY Premier League and Championship fanzine which has a cover price of £1 which is regularly published". But that's not relevant to its notability. What we're looking for is independent coverage that deals with the fanzine itself. Please see Notability for a definition of notability. In my opinion, "significant" coverage needs to be more than the media in search of a quick "what the fans think" quote, who always use fanzine/website editors because their name and contact details are public and readily accessible. Incidentally, you refer to an answers.com page above; you may not have realised that page contains a mirror of the Wikipedia article The Football Factory (film), so its mention of cfcuk is just a reflection of the sentence you recently added to that article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for that and point taken reference http://www.answers.com/topic/the-football-factory-film-1 but please could you explain what the difference is between the following fanzines; Abandon chip!, Blue Moon, Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium, NAC Fanzine De Rat, The Oatcake, Red Issue, The Gooner, There's Only One F in Fulham, United We Stand and War of the Monster Trucks all of which are also football fanzines yet are not / have not, as far as I can see, been listed for deletion.

After a (very) quick perusal of the Wikipedia pages for the above listed fanzines, I cannot see why there is a question over the acceptance of a page for cfcuk. Incidentally, the cfcuk fanzine has been mentioned in previous seasons within the pages of both Red Issue and United We Stand with the editor of the latter MUFC fanzine (Andy Mitten) knowing the editor of cfcuk.

Also, like United We Stand and TOOFIF, cfcuk was also a member of the now defunct Rivals network – albeit under its previous name MHBAWA (Matthew Harding’s Blue And White Army) and was, in fact, one of the first fanzines that the network – then controlled by Chrysalis records – signed up. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please see WP:WAX, which explains that the existence of an article on one topic has no bearing on whether or not an article on a similar topic should remain. It may be that those fanzines are completely undeserving of articles, it's just that nobody's got round to nominating them yet.  Also, at least one was nominated for deletion but kept (see Articles for deletion/Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Chelsea F.C. - the article title is a plausible search term for the club's article, and the fanzine could be (briefly) mentioned in a "Supporters" section, which I notice that, highly unusually for a Featured Article on a football club, it does not currently have..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys

Without (hopefully) being a nuisance, I am still persisting with my ‘appeal’ against deletion. I have read the AfD article concerning ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium)) and, judging by the judgement given there, I feel justified in asking that the cfcuk entry be retained. Could you tell me whether the following line, “A bit of RS and references could swing me on this, largely because of its longevity of publication” refers to the fanzine’s longevity or the amount of time that the page concerning it had remained on the Wikipedia site?

As well as that, I feel that I have answered or adequately replied to the majority of points that have been raised above with several including the following, “As to the article's claim that the magazine used to be called "Matthew Harding's Blue And White Army," I can find plenty of evidence that "Blue and White Army" is a fan chant for Chelsea, but none that it was the predecessor of this fanzine. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)” which is, in fact, incorrect in as much as “Blue and White Army” in itself is not a ‘fan chant’ of Chelsea as it is always preceded by a manager’s name or, in most cases when it is sung at matches, that of the late Matthew Harding.

The fanzine has had plenty of mentions on other Chelsea related fan sites such as http://www.CFC-Net.co.uk and http://www.ChelseaSupportersGroup.net and, as mentioned above, the link to the official Chelsea website mention is just one of several that has appeared there. The cfcuk fanzine is a ‘permanent member’ of the club’s Fans’ Forum’, a group that is made up of representatives of the supporters and meets with the Directors of Chelsea at least four times a season. cfcuk was the first organ of the supporters to be asked to join the Fans Forum when it was set up by the then Chelsea Chief Executive Peter Kenyon in 2004. The first recorded entry in the minutes for the Fans’ Forum is dated 20/11/2004 (http://www.chelseafc.com/page/FansForumDetails/0,,10268~1326849,00.html) that refers to the groups representing the Chelsea supporters names Gary Bacchus from “BlueAndWhiteArmy.net (which, as explained above, was the then virtual version of the then named Matthew Harding’s Blue And White Army fanzine, a website which was hosted by the now defunct Rivals network) as the fanzine’s spokesman.

A book entitled “The Special Ones: Chelsea by the Fans” and compiled by authors Martin Knight and John King (both of whom feature within the Wikipedia pages) features the match reports for the 2004-2005 Premiership season that were published in the cfcuk fanzine for that season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "could you tell me whether the following line, “A bit of RS and references could swing me on this, largely because of its longevity of publication” refers to the fanzine’s longevity or the amount of time that the page concerning it had remained on the Wikipedia site" - the former. How long an article has been on Wikipedia has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the subject. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for that - the fanzine has been in existence for more than 10 years. It was first published in 1999 and is now in it's 11th season with issue 108 due out in March.

As well as the above, articles from Matthew Harding’s Blue And White Army also appeared in consecutive issues of Survival Of The Fattest – a book that featured articles from the majority of football related fanzines that were available at the time of publication. A link to the Amazon website which has copies for sale follows; http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=survival+of+the+fattest+football+fanzines&x=12&y=20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 February 2010 (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.