Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Park United Sparrows


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hampton Park United Sparrows

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

a fourth tier amateur club created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  15:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN has not participated in a national competition to my knowledge. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nomination and Fenix down. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Club played in the 2014 FFA Cup preliminary rounds so it does satisfy WP:FOOTYN. The COI is concerning, but the club is notable and so it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * they only played in the preliminary rounds. LibStar (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The preliminary rounds are part of the tournament, are they not? Smartyllama (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They are, but not for the purpose of WP:FOOTYN, since they are explicitly organised on a regional basis to determine the single state qualifier. Fenix down (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Question - the policy says "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria" (Emphasis mine.) Notice the difference in language between the two parts. So is the criteria actually playing in a national cup, or being eligible to play in one? The club clearly meets the latter criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it does not. As the qualifying rounds are specific state competitions, the club only becomes eligible for national competition if it wins one and actually qualifies for the competition proper. To my knowledge this club has never qualified for the national competition. Fenix down (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * They're eligible for the Cup even if they've never qualified. If they weren't eligible, they wouldn't be participating in qualifying. As an analogy, there are a number of national teams which are eligible for the FIFA World Cup but have never qualified. Any FIFA member is eligible whether they've actually qualified or not. That's why they participate in qualifying, but, for instance, the Martinique national football team doesn't participate in CONCACAF qualifying in spite of being a CONCACAF member. It's not eligible for the World Cup since it's not a FIFA member. Obviously, I know there are different notability criteria for national teams than clubs and I'm not trying to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, merely point out what "eligible" means. Smartyllama (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as per nomination and Fenix down. Because eligibility to participate in national cups is too ambiguous in this case, and maybe we should re-evalauate WP:FOOTYN. ron az Talk!  11:15, 19 September 2016 (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.