Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints Old Boys


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Saints Old Boys

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was PROD'ed, with this rather long-winded rationale: "Extremely low-level team, playing in what is essentially a pub league, lead and "comedy" wikilinking of players to articles on celebrities, etc, suggests this is essentially a social/recreational team. Doesn't meet WP:FOOTY project rule of thumb of having played in a national cup competition or a league which would qualify them for entry into one, also doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline of coverage in reliable third-party sources". Article creator then posted this on the talk page: "Objection to deletion of page: I have removed the comedy links to irrelavent celebrities/articles. This team is however an official team in the Bristol Downs League Division 1, recognised on the FA English Football Pyramid. As per - Sneyd Park AFC.  Saints Old Boys play in the GFA cup (Gloucesterhire Football Association) and are not a pub side.  Please advise if anything else on the site requires changing.  Thanks."  Sneyd Park, however, have played in a national cup competition (the FA Amateur Cup) and therefore have a slightly greater claim to notability (that's not to say that their article shouldn't maybe also be deleted). According to our own article on the English football league system, this team plays at only the 21st level, and while they may technically not be an actual pub team, they are still a social/recreational team who play in a public park. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as Chris correctly asserts, this team hasn't played at a high enough level yet for them to warrant an article. GiantSnowman 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: for reasons above: way below notability threshhold. I note that the article has just one contributing editor, who has zero unrelated other edits to his name, which is not proof that it is non-notable, but is often indicative of it. This editor has invited us to "advise if anything else on the site requires changing": does he/she not recognise the inappropriateness of the lead paragraph and the list of club office holders? Kevin McE (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, this is an amateur football team. If you delete them then in fairness you should delete every other team registered on here up to Semi Professional Level on the FA Pyramid. The fact that they are at Level 21 is irrelavent as they are registered with the English FA. If I am wrong, please can you advise me what level the threshold is set at. I have now removed any information other than facts about the club. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajklos (talk • contribs)
 * As stated above, the threshold for club notability is generally taken to be past participation in a national cup competition (FA Cup/Trophy/Vase) or membership of a league whose clubs are eligible to enter one of the aforementioned competitions. As of 2009, this covers clubs down to level 10 in the English football league system. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, forgive me trying to for expand your encyclopedia -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajklos (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom. Spiderone (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Chris says it all: they play 11 tiers below the cut-off point for notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nom sums it up quite well. I think it's snowing already. Tim Song (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A look at the article yesterday reveals that its primary author was long as invested in nonsense vandalism as in writing a constructive article. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom.--EchetusXe 13:27, 23 August 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.