Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater glasgow afc


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Greater glasgow afc

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  15:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per what the "A" in their name stands for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A does not always stand for amateur you know. However yes clearly non notable does not meet WP:GNG. Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does in this club. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That does not matter in the slightest - amateur clubs are not inherently non-notable; there are hundreds of notable amateur clubs on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 09:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does matter when there's zero evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The same would apply for a professional club though. Your !vote is based on their amateur status and is therefore incorrect. GiantSnowman 11:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as fully professional sportspeople are automatically notable under WP:NSPORTS regardless of the amount of coverage, so it's sensible to apply the same to clubs, so professional or amateur statue does matter. Whilst an amateur club can still be notable through third-party coverage, my experience of AfDs is that I have never ever found anywhere near the coverage needed to pass notability (at least not in sports like football when there's fully professional leagues). If you want to force pedantry between inherently non-notable and non-notable unless notable elsewhere, be my guest, but I think this argument is exhausted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, NSPORTS quite clearly states that "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (my emphasis) - saying that they are automatically notable after playing 1 second of professional sport is laughable. GiantSnowman 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can apply WP:COMMONSENSE if and when someone creates an article about a footballer who had a professional career of 1 second. Until then, the fact remains that how much of a sport individual/team's participation at a professional level matters a lot. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Player? Yes. Clubs? No. GiantSnowman 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already given my reasoning for amateur clubs. I only addressed your point about professional individuals because you challenged my interpretation of it. This is getting silly. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable football club. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The club does not pass WP:GNG.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  22:12, 27 February 2012 (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.