Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duntocher Hibernian 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. ✗ plicit  00:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Duntocher Hibernian F.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT - even fails the non-binding WP:FOOTBALL convention about playing in the national Cup, having never done so Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have added a few refs which hopefully boost the case for WP:GNG pass. As well as playing in the Junior Cup final (covered in The Herald as per ref and probably elsewhere), the club won the Central Junior Football League twice in the 1950s so were among the top non-league clubs of that period. Yes they never played in the senior Scottish Cup, but that wasn't a possibility for any Junior clubs until the 21st century, instead it was a parallel 'little brother' organisation. The more recent refs I added were related to the ground - these confirm that the current team with the name is a very low-level amateur outfit, but there is still sufficient interest in a club that faded out 40 years ago to wish to restart it with the same name, and for the local newspaper to want to report on that. To call that SIGCOV would be pushing it, but COV certainly. I also linked to the Players category for the club which has 25 entries including a few internationals, so they had a decent record of producing professionals as well as bumbling along in the junior bubble. Would be a disappointing precedent for pre-Internet clubs if this were deleted, given their small but clear part in the history of Scottish football. Crowsus (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it was pre-internet doesn't mean it is not notable. I think coverage is sufficient enough, and as said above, the club itself was a clear part of Scottish football. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is pre-internet but it was a significant junior side back in the day.-- Mvqr (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: a club can not fail WP:NSPORT per WP:NTEAM. Geschichte (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - other than the nomination being flawed in saying the club fails NSPORT (which does not even apply, as it refers to biographies only - shows the amount of care the nominator has put in!) GNG is met per Crowsus. GiantSnowman 22:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination is flawed, as it doesn't fail NSPORTS. Also, I'm finding over 300 hits in the British Newspaper Archive between 1894 and 1966. Perhaps someone with access could find some GNG references. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As per comments above by others, this club meets WP:NSPORTS. Caphadouk (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Keep- Junior football was historically of strong interest in Scotland (many junior teams had bigger support than some of the smaller senior teams) and attracted substantial coverage. Duntocher Hibernian were at one time a major junior club. I would also concur that it is significant that club produced players that went on to make an impact in the senior game. Crowsus work has also improved the article and I would concur with the other points raised in favour of keep. Dunarc (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2022 (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.