Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midhurst & Easebourne 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. Courcelles 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Midhurst & Easebourne F.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article recreated after deletion by prod and still no sources. Fails WP:FOOTY guideline of eligibility to play in the FA Cup and no reliable secondary sources have been found to establish notability. The club is not even in the top league for the county. Charles (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can only find passing mentions in local news sources through Google News. Only two passing mentions in Google Books. There's not enough here to satisfy the GNG, as far as I can see. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am now satisfied that the club passes WP:FOOTYN and that there are enough reliable sources to base an article on, as per discussion below. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - on further thought, this team plays at a notable level. Would still like to see the article improved though. GiantSnowman 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Club plays at Step 6 of the English football pyramid, which has also been used as a notability guideline in the past (see here and here). The club is eligible to compete in the FA Cup, but for some reason has not. Number   5  7  10:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that this club has a good enough ground to be eligible for the FA Cup.--Charles (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct - they do not have floodlights. However, they are at a level eligible to participate and could enter the FA Cup if they switched their home games to another ground (like Durham City do). Number   5  7  12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also added a couple of references to the article. Number   5  7  10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me that they pass WP:FOOTY, so I am now satisfied with the club's notability. I think we need to be careful about sources though - looking at the sources you have added, I don't doubt that the information they contain is true, but I don't think that they would pass WP:RS. If there are no sources we can actually use, I don't think I can bring myself to change my !vote to "keep", on purely practical grounds. Maybe there are some primary sources we can use per the restrictions at WP:PRIMARY? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Football Club History Database has been deemed to be a RS at numerous past FLCs and FACs. And Nomad Online appears to be maintained by David Bauckham, who is a published (not self-published) author on the subject of football stadia, so that would seem to be a RS too...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think all my objections have been answered, so I'll change my !vote to keep. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a notable side in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't pass GNG as there is very little coverage. Delusion23 (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Number57's rationale. --Jimbo[online] 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs improved with more sources but does pass WP:FOOTY Just. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (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.