Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Ashburnians A.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   Delete Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Ashburnians A.F.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable Sunday League football club. The club is apparently eligible for the FA Cup according to the IP who removed the original PROD, but I can find no evidence that they have ever actually entered the FA Cup, which is a criterion for notability amongst English football clubs. – PeeJay 23:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

After looking through the sources they all seem to lead to the same page. That website doesn't look real and the 'chairman' doesn't seem to exist Adam4267 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 23:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like an elaborate college hoax. I think the only true fact on the page is that the club exists and plays in a very low level Sunday league.  I see no evidence that they are eligible for the Fa Cup, but may be eligible for the FA Sunday Cup, which would deny any inherent notability.  Additionally, the personal section at the bottom of the page contains quite a lot of, potentially, slanderous and/or libellous unsourced info on living people (in contrary to WP:BLP policies.  Ravendrop (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely non-notable amateur social/kick-about team. As the requirements for entry into the FA Cup include membership of the top ten levels of the English football league system and a floodlit stadium, this club is fairly obviously a a million miles away from being eligible.  I suspect that the fact that the photo gallery on the club's website contains 0 photos of match action and 120 imags of "socials" says all we need to know about the level of seriousness of this team..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete Not quite sure where all of this negative criticism is coming from. The chairman certainly exists - he is on google and is even contactable if you need proof. The requirements for the FA cup do not actually include membership of the top ten levels of English football league system - it is perfectly legitimate to enter so long as you have a flood lit stadium with a capacity of 250 people (along with a payment of £250). We are looking at entering the FA cup next season, and have all the requirements if needs be - we can rent the ground at http://www.flixtonfootballclub.co.uk/, who also play in our league, for the matches required. There is no hoax involved in this, and it is a perfectly valuable contribution to the wiki encyclopedia. 15:47, 28 Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.56.28 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)  — 94.193.56.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * First of all, having tentative plans to enter the FA Cup next season is not sufficient - see WP:CRYSTAL. Also, if you genuinely believe your club is eligible to enter the FA Cup (as opposed to being on a wind-up), I suggest you keep your cash in your pocket and check out the competition regulations on the FA website, where it states that "A Club not participating in the Premier League or The Football League must have competed in either The FA Challenge Trophy or the FA Challenge Vase Competitions in the previous season".  As your club hasn't competed in either of those competitions this season, you are not eligible to enter the FA Cup next season.  ...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ....oh, and all the negative criticism might stem from the sheer amount of obviously made-up rubbish in the article (multi-millionaire swiss cheese tycoons, etc) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete
 * as for obviously made up rubbish, there isn't anything on the page about a cheese tycoon. Our current owner is Aristides Bernard-Grau, a relatively well known millionaire student, whose finances do not come at all from cheese. Not quite sure where you got that from at all, but think that you probably ought to be deleted off wikipedia for factual innacuracies. As for the website being fake, I'm not entirely sure what you are meaning. The website is very real, although a slight work in progress. We don't currently employ a match photographer (funds are tight, as we are saving up for that FA cup run...), although we do take a socials photographer with us when we hit the town hard. That is why we have a number of social photos, but not yet any match photos.
 * You may not be aware that every previous iteration of a Wikipedia article can be viewed at any time. The crap about Swiss cheese was present when I made my comment above, but was then removed from the article by this edit, after I posted my comment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While you are correct in terms of FA Cup entry for most teams, we are actually being fast-tracked. We have a number of close friends within the FA who are allowing us to skip past the normal rulings. I have received, on good information, that we are going to be allowed to enter the FA cup next season.
 * If that is true, I will eat my sofa. FA officials do not "fast-track" low-level Sunday league teams into the FA Cup -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as one final point, and I'm not sure if this will allow us to sneak into the realms of wiki-credibility or not, but we are connected with Ashburne Hall of the University of Manchester, something I have added to the wiki page and will find a reference for later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.154.183 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One other point of proof is that we are listed on the Errea wiki page as one of the significant teams which they provide kit for. Some of our sister teams include Parma, Brighton and Hove Albion and Northampton Town. I think they are all allowed wiki pages..... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.154.183 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most of this confusion comes down to the fact that you don't quite appreciate what amateur football is at a very basic level. It is a huge amount of effort, which is now beginning to come off in terms of our entry into England's greatest cup competition next season. We are hoping for a long and very successful cup run and I'm sure you will wish us much the same. — 94.192.154.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete – Clearly non-notable at best, with blatant hoax material at worst.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly non-notable team. GiantSnowman 01:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete - The article meets all criteria which Wikipedia uses to deem what is a good article. It is well written. It is both factually accurate and verifiable, it references a number of established sources. It is broad in its coverage. It has a neutral viewpoint. From the few days I have been monitoring the article it has had very little to no changes. It is also illustrated with suitable images in the format common to most good Wikipedia articles.
 * Also, not having competed in the FA Cup is not a valid argument for non-notability. If this were the case then articles on Acle United F.C., Watton United F.C., Fleet Spurs F.C. as well as a host of other football clubs should be considered for deletion. Old Ashburnians A.F.C. are a team competing in the league system and appear from this to be participating in the FA Cup in the near future.
 * Feel free to nominate those articles for deletion then, and they will be judged on their merit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ''I'm sorry, I tend to prefer not spending my spare time trying to make other people's time and effort redundant. That's probably because I don't have much spare time. However, I feel you may have missed my point. I was trying to say that these we're notable teams which we're comparable to the football team in question thus disproving the point on non-notability. Regards 188.221.54.223 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, a deletion discussion board is probably not the best place for personal assumptions and snide remarks (see remark by ChrisTheDude above). 188.221.54.223 (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — 188.221.54.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Clearly not notable. Number   5  7  22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No more notable than a pub team Spiderone  11:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete How is this page still up, it's incredibly bias, poorly written, sourced and almost certainly factually inaccurate. Adam4267 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of the dozens of non-notable Sunday league teams that turn out at Hough End (the Manchester equivalent to Hackney Marshes) each week. This team play at a level so low that their division contains the reserves of a pub team. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete agreed with above comments, clearly non-notable this case. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - this club clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards and a lot of the information both in this article and the club's website is unverifiable. I can't find any evidence of their supposed entry in the FA Cup, and the only independent Ghits I could find for their multi-millionaire 'chairman' actually refer to a sixth form student from Tooting. Bettia   Talk  10:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those sources are three years old, which suggests he is now at university and has been included here as a gag either by himself or his mates. It certainly seems very unlikely that he is a milionaire/tycoon of any description...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 3 February 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.