Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix F.C. Navan Road


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix F.C. Navan Road

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - plays at level 4 in the Irish pyramid which emerging consensus indicates as the threshold for notability. The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as TerriersFan says, level 4 of the Irish football league is notable enough. GiantSnowman 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - if this is a notable level to be playing at, there should be 3rd party references where the team is the subject of the coverage, could you add some?--RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Level 4 team. BigDunc  20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In this and similar AFD's the team's participation in "level 4" is stated as evidence of its notability. Can you be more specific? How do you feel this helps the article meet WP:GNG or any guidelines on sporting articles?  Particularly with this one sentence article that makes no claim of notability.  --RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - all the pages that you have AfD'd clearly meet WP:FOOTYN. In the case of level 4 Irish clubs, they all play in the main national cup competition. Whilst meeting WP:GNG is good, it is not essential for the article to be kept. This is a guideline, the preamble to which states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Consequently, it is open to the Community to elect to keep an article that may not meet the guideline. This contrasts with policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc which must be met. The reason for a threshold is not to include notable teams but to exclude the mass of non-notable clubs. It is the nature of football clubs that they tend to get extensive coverage in the media and this one is no exception. Since the absence of sources from the page is obviously bothering you, I would suggest that you might like to add some yourself rather than asking others to do the work? TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Comment You are correct that all of these are guidelines but references are not optional regardless of what guidelines exist for a particular topic.  Also, it is the responsibility of the editor who creates the article or adds information to it to properly source it. --RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, appearance in the later stages of the FAI Cup pass notability in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * KeepApears notable enough, and has come a long way since original PROD.  DB 103245 talk 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2009 (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.