Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarbarians 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Scarbarians F.C

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD removed by article creator, who seems be a SPA with a COI. This is a non-notable amateur soccer team that has not competed at a high enough level to merit an article. GiantSnowman 02:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable group. tedder (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  — tedder (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  — tedder (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete. User page. I believe as a user I can have my own page and title it as I wish. Isn't that correct? From my understanding it is, and I have had this page for over 2 years now.Untitled F.C. (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2011 (EST)
 * This was an article, not a userpage. See User_pages. Second, even if you left it on your user page, you can have a draft in your userspace but not something masquerading as an article- it's meant as a temporary home. Wikipedia is not a web host. You can use Google Sites, Squarespace, Facebook, or hundreds of other places for unencyclopedic content. tedder (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Explain to me why it has been running no problem for the past 2 years? In addition how would you know if it a notable group or not. Have you been in the city of Scarborough and seen this club yourself. I highly doubt it! (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2011 (EST)
 * For age of the article, see WP:ARTICLEAGE. General notability is discussed at WP:GNG; roughly, an article needs to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. The local nickel paper doesn't suffice. A single article doesn't suffice. That doesn't mean it isn't important to you, it means it doesn't pass the threshold of encyclopedic notability. tedder (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, as this team fails to meet the criteria for notability, per WP:NSPORT. It probably "has been running no problem for the past 2 years" because no one outside the team has seen it in the past two years. OCNative (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why is it a problem now there are hundreds of individuals using their user page as a personal page rather than for something useful even tedder who is proposing this page should be deleted uses Wikipedia as a personal page. Why is there no consistency why is his page not being deleted? (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2011 (EST)


 * I think you're having trouble understanding the difference between a user page and an article. All user pages are preceded by "User:" in their title, which this page does not. OCNative (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (or userfy -- see below). Given that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the league that this club plays in, it seems unlikely that this club would itself be notable enough for an article, and I can't find any proper sources about the club myself. I would also note that nobody here is talking about deleting the user page User:Untitled F.C. which happens to redirect to Scarbarians F.C, the page under discussion for deletion. Only Scarbarians F.C, a page in the main encyclopedia, is up for deletion here. (However, if it is deleted, the link on User:Untitled F.C. will become a broken redlink.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been using my user page to edit and change everything I do not know how an article was created in the first place. My teams name has changed and it may have changed unintentionally. But even then there should be some consistency. (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2011 (EST)
 * You've actually been working on it since 2008 in the main article space. There are millions of articles, so it probably got overlooked. The best place for it would be in the Article Incubator where other editors could help you out. tedder (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If User:Untitled F.C. wants to have this page userfied to be a subpage in their userspace, I would not object to that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I am understanding correctly these seems like a reasonable solutions. (talk) 7:21, 6 June 2011 (EST)
 * Metropolitan90, I would object to it. Userspace is decent for entries that could become articles that are being actively worked on. It "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". This is a case where it will clearly never meet notability guidelines, it would be best hosted on a web hosting provider, not part of Wikipedia. To quote further, userspace is for "short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use". tedder (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is the solution here? talk) 10:34, 7 June 2011 (EST)
 * Use any of the options listed at Alternative outlets. tedder (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So I cannot even use my user page? talk) 07:38, 8 June 2011 (EST)
 * This is not a personal website/blog - this is an encyclopedia. GiantSnowman 12:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that but why can't I have it as a User page, so many people even people that are voting for deletion here are using their User page for personal reasons. talk) 6:17, 8 June 2011 (EST)


 * Delete, fails notability guidelines. What User:Untitled F.C. has got is a user page that redirects to the article, and my advice would be to take a copy of the article and save it under a name something like User:Untitled F.C./Scarbarians F.C.   PK  T (alk)  21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is the solution here? talk) 10:34, 7 June 2011 (EST)
 * Might I suggest Wikia? OCNative (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a host website that will use the same templates and will not require having to put all this work to waste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitled F.C. (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a free web host service. If the user wishes to keep it they need to move it to a different website, perhaps create their own website for their local team. Delusion23 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 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.