Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirlaugh AFC


 * 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. Aksi_great (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Skirlaugh AFC


Aside from the fact that the article is of extremely poor quality, this team plays in the East Riding League Division 4, which sits at level 17 of the English league system, way below the benchmark for notability of clubs ChrisTheDude 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Rakuten06 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- S kully Collins Edits 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Johnn 7 07:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and for what it's worth, the article could have been prodded - it's been abandoned more or less since its creation. Qwghlm 09:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies - it was after midnight and I wasn't thinking clearly.... :-) ChrisTheDude 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing to add. feydey 12:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, this actually meets the criteria for PROD'ing.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly non-notable.--Poetlister 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Certainly not notable.-- danntm T C 19:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -3,000 hits on Google. Smells like advertisment. :( Arctic-Editor 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Rever e ndG 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete''' Oh, dear. Poor grammar, spelling mistakes, dodgy syntax and wholly non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete phhfff, these guys are extra non notable †he Bread  00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is now in dispute as a deletion criterion. Perhaps we should address the verifiability of this article instead? 70.101.147.74 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (response to my comment) Just checked it. There are absolutely no sources cited. This should be deleted as unverifiable and perhaps vanity. 70.101.147.74 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way is notability in dispute as a deletion criterion? Surely notability is the cornerstone of WP? ChrisTheDude 21:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. - fchd 20:42, 25 November 2006 (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.