Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cotham Park RFC


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Cotham Park RFC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As far as I can tell, this is a minor amateur rugby club with no real importance. They're the most recent champion of the Gloucester 3 league, which is all the way at the bottom of the English rugby union system — the worst club doesn't get relegated because there's nowhere to get relegated to. And their website makes it clear that they take anyone from longtime players to individuals who have never played before: that's a minor amateur group for friends, not a topic that gets a Wikipedia article. A club at this level could be notable if they've gradually been relegated a long distance from past glory (imagine that a professional club went through decades of decline and ended up at the bottom level of the pyramid) or if they were the subject of special interest (e.g. a doctoral dissertation in sociology covered rugby clubs in Gloucestershire with a special focus on Cotham Park), but barring those unusual circumstances, I can't see how a club at this level could be notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Clubs at this level are not inherently notable, and there's nothing indicating they pass WP:GNG either. Smartyllama (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2017 (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.