Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Ridings


 * 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. L Faraone  05:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

FC Ridings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Amateur team playing at the notional 18th level of English football, far far below the cut-off point for notability generally accepted at WP:FOOTY -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A long way from WP:NFOOTY and I couldn't find any sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. (I guess WP:A7 doesn't apply here, since being in a particular league could be construed as a claim to notability.) Dricherby (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If the league is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article surely a team within it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.125 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow at all, that's like saying that because a corporation is notable everyone who works there is notable too. Clubs have to display their own notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:CLUB, the article fails the notability criterias for clubs in general. WP:CLUB is an alternative criteria from the broader WP:ORG, which is listed under the criterias for WP:A7. WP:NFOOTY is only for people (players/managers/referees). The WikiProject Football has written an essay WP:FOOTYN, to detail the consensus criterias for Players, Clubs and Leagues. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Teams only 2 divisions higher have their own Wiki entries also the team is officially recognized by English FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they don't have. They are reserve teams of higher playing first teams. Linked are the first teams (one has a FA Cup match in his history, the other ... don't know why it's notable).--Ben Ben (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Even so, those first teams are only 4 above, and the point still stands that the club is a official Charter Standard FA football club, with notable players over the years including former Hull City and North Ferriby players and even a former Portugal youth player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To have an article on Wikipedia, a subject must be "notable". This means that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is necessary so that we can write an accurate and balanced article. The words "significant", "relibale" and "independent" have specific meanings so please read the linked article to find out exactly what they mean. (In particular, coverage in local media only is not usually enough to establish notability, though it's fine for sourcing facts in the article.) To argue for keeping the article, you need to show that it meets the notability criteria, according to the guidelines at WP:CLUB, WP:FOOTYN or the General Notability Guideline. Please note that notability is not inherited, which means that a club does not automatically become notable just because some notable person played for it. Also, note that arguments along the lines of "We should have an article on X because there is an article on the similar subject Y" are usually not considered valid. Dricherby (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly not notable - the widely accepted criteria for English football clubs is to have played at level 10 or above, or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase, and it fails to meet any of these. Number   5  7  11:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I don't see the harm in keeping the article, and despite my antipathy to football I feel like this should still be part of Wikipedia. But yes, it clearly isn't notable enough Gmkeros (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOHARM, WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons for keeping an article. This is a non-notable amateur football team, a breakaway side (initially) of another non-notable team, playing in a very low tier. Also fails WP:GNG by approximately a thousand miles. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "a subject must be "notable". This means that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" How are the English FA, various sport sites and newspaper articles not independent of the source and reliable?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The English FA are clearly not going to be independent, and that shouldn't need explaining. Also, local coverage isn't usually very independent and is rarely that reliable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The three sources in the article do not give significant coverage. and  are just WP:ROUTINE announcements of sports results;  mentions F.C. Ridings only in passing (it's an article about another club, which mentions they'll be playing F.C. Ridings the following day). Dricherby (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are countless articles from other clubs etc with match reports/previews of games against the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please cite more than one non-local source that gives significant coverage to the club. If these sources exist, the subject is notable and the article is secure. Dricherby (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple from just a quick search. Unsigned comment by Markreeves94 14:07, 5 May 2013 ref tags removed to make links visible by Dricherby (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, please sign your comments by adding ~ to the end and please stop citing yourself as the author of sources that you did not write. I have asked you to do this twice, now. With the possible exception of hu17, none of the three sources you give is reliable. None of them gives more than WP:ROUTINE coverage (quoting from WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia"). Please read the Wikipedia guidelines and policies that I am linking: they explain the requirements. If you don't understand them, either ask here or on your talk page. Dricherby (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything that's a match report or preview is not anything other than routine. None of the sources you've just cited are reliable, or national, sources. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple from just a quick search. Unsigned comment by Markreeves94 14:07, 5 May 2013 ref tags removed to make links visible by Dricherby (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, please sign your comments by adding ~ to the end and please stop citing yourself as the author of sources that you did not write. I have asked you to do this twice, now. With the possible exception of hu17, none of the three sources you give is reliable. None of them gives more than WP:ROUTINE coverage (quoting from WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia"). Please read the Wikipedia guidelines and policies that I am linking: they explain the requirements. If you don't understand them, either ask here or on your talk page. Dricherby (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything that's a match report or preview is not anything other than routine. None of the sources you've just cited are reliable, or national, sources. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles like this should be invited, it provides information on local football which may not be relevant to the entire world granted, but within East Yorkshire it is useful, also my main issue is that article is less than a day old and it has been heavily attacked already possibly before more information is added, these are the type of articles which make Wikipedia what it is and I believe it has a right to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.125 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So we should "invite" articles on clearly non-notable topics? Sorry, but that's really not what Wikipedia is about...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about improving knowledge and providing varied and reliable information, when this isn't available where possible it should be contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.125 (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Wikipedia's opinion, established by broad consensus of its editors, is that Wikipedia is about this. Dricherby (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should take note of the 5th pillar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.125 (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The fifth pillar means that the rules can change over time, not that "anything goes", in particular things that are against long-standing consensus. Dricherby (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The Mark Reeves who created the page is presumably one of the two Mark Reeveses who plays for the club. That would indicate a clear conflict of interest. Dricherby (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The page has been written impartial and neutral including where applicable external cites/references to other authors articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The page is indeed written neutrally, and I commend you on that point, but the COI information is still valid. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep surely the fact that they have won a league which features on wiki is a reason for notability178.78.77.237 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reasons for notability are documented here: WP:NOTABILITY. Dricherby (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * NB first ever edit by above IP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to point out that this article is not intended "Finished" and I and many others have lots more information to add, time depending.Markreeves94 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All articles can be improved with time, yes, and a page should never be deleted just because it isn't "finished" – probably no article on Wikipedia is ever really finished, anyway. The issue here isn't the quality of the article but whether there should be an article at all. Establishing notability is absolutely crucial. Dricherby (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even within notability range.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - this club has not played at a level where there is a consensus that notability is inherited, and the club fails general notability guideline as there isn't enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2013 (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.