Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Legend's College Johnsbridge Invitational XI


 * 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. bd2412 T 13:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

St. Legend's College Johnsbridge Invitational XI

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. As I said in the removed prod tag, "junk". -Splash - tk 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or speedy-delete per WP:CSD A7. I don't see a notability claim. Haukur 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, ok. I should have speedied it. I just wasn't sure it wouldn't have wound up directly on WP:DRV. Splash - tk 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you want this to be deleted? It is a real part of the college. It is not junk. Do not delete. End of discussion.
 * It can be a real phenomenon without a Wikipedia article on it being appropriate. We have a bunch of guidelines on what subjects are suitable for articles. Haukur 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I, along with the other members of the team and college feel it is a very worthy cause to be on wikipedia, helping to educate and enlighten others into the activites, past times and traditions that take place at one of this country's most well known educational establishments. Cambs_Parnell

Notariety: http://mens.cuafc.org/team.php?TeamID=52&PHPSESSID=126db7c4f8985ca51035255b2dd6a991

This article falls into no general catagories for speedy delete. At all. Guys just relax!


 * How do you add a notability claim? I am new to this.
 * See Notability for some ideas. Another problem is that the article isn't currently written in an encyclopedic style. Another big problem is that there aren't any reliable sources listed as references to substantiate the contents of the article. Haukur 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason there are no refernces and notability is becuase it is a recent development and no one has published a book on it.
 * HOWEVER, the team has appeared in Varsity, Cambridge University's weekly newspaper, on two separate occassions. Evidence of this would be sufficient notariety AND notability? Am I correct? Vis-a-vis the style of writing, yes I agree it is not too encyclopaedic. But would we have ever got rugby if everyone followed the rules. It is all part of the Johnian flair assocciated with the team, and the sport.
 * Sadly, no, that would almost certainly not be enough. Look, it's not you - it's us. There are places on the Internet for your content on hot athletic college boys in pink t-shirts. Lots of places. Nice places. But Wikipedia isn't one of them. If the team hasn't got any news coverage outside of the college then you don't stand a chance. Even a mention or two in local papers still wouldn't get you very far. Haukur 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable amateur team. NawlinWiki 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not delete 26000 students cannot be wrong. Very notable within university.
 * Yes, you don't want it deleted - we get that already. Haukur 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then. On the basis it offends no one, is notable to an extent, is only linked from the St John's College page, and is a real phenomenon, what harm is it on wiki? People who here about it and search for it will be glad of the information it provides. You underestimate it's fame within the institution. I have said all I can. Now it's fait is left to the wikipedia gods, and the sad chieftains of regulation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambs Parnell (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment That the article offends no-one is not a reason to keep it. See WP:NOHARM. For a topic to be included on wikipedia, its noteability has to be asserted by independent sources. A college newspaper is not an independent source. The article should therefore be deleted.Dr bab 08:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete after merging to St John's College, Cambridge and seeing whether it survives there. As an Oxford man, I know Cambridge people do silly things, but I doubt they will put up with this non-notable stuff on the College article. --Bduke 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not an acceptable solution. If we want (or might want) to use this article's content, either in its current location, or in the main article about St. John's College, or anywhere else, we must keep the history of the edits by which the content was created, as specified in the GNU Free Documentation License under which Wikipedia's content is licensed (it's all in the fine print when you edit a page [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px]]). However, if the content in this article is not verifiable, or has other serious problems that would amount to a legitimate reason to delete it, it should not be re-used in any article, in which case we would have no reason to care who wrote it, and no legal obligation to keep the edit history. It should be easy enough for you to decide which of these scenarios applies to this article and clarify your suggestion. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not being entirely serious, just pointing out that a good test of how encyclopedic this article is, would be to ask how much of it could appear in the main College article. I doubt any of it would survive there for very long. Of course if this is stripped back to a stub and then merged, then the article should be made a redirect to the College article. However, I still think none of the merged material would be still there in a month, so it should just be deleted. --Bduke 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. I just wanted to clarify that merging should not be done on a "trial basis", nor in a way that is only traceable through deleted edits. As for this particular article, the only link provided as an outside source is one that asks me to register with facebook.com (no thanks), and without looking at it I can only guess that the content there (I understand it's a blog site) was probably posted by the same people who gave us this article. I can't find anything on Google either. Delete. — CharlotteWebb 06:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NN amateur team, speedy candidate.  Eliminator JR Talk  01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ultra-trivial. Postlebury 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As the co-founder of this football team, I feel that I should also say my peace on this matter. We have not posted this page to broadcast ourselves in any shape or form, and most particularly not as, "hot, athletic college boys in pink t-shirts". We are an official and affiliated part of the sporting scene of Cambridge University, recognised by the University football leagues and not only by St. John's College itself. I am sure that you will be able to see past the slightly humorous exterior of our, "pink t-shirts" and recognise that we have just as much right to have a place on your website as any of the Blues teams (after all, we seem to get more press coverage and have a squad twice the size of that of the Blues soccer team). Our content describes to the viewing public what has become a well-known part of Cambridge's sporting scene (which is, as I'm sure you are aware, one of the most prestigious in the world), and therefore we all feel that deleting our site would not only be a massive sense of humour failure on the part of wikipedia.org, but also totally unnecessary and unjust.

Greg Caterer (club secretary)


 * I wasn't disparaging you with my "hot, athletic etc." comment. I just call'em as I see'em :) Haukur 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice - current article is unsalvageable rubbish, but someone could potentially write a valid article on them. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No - all amateur teams are NN except in very exceptional circumstances.  Eliminator JR Talk  14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - I know - but given Johns' propensity for turning out notable alumni, there's a reasonable chance a member of this will go on to accomplish something & we might want this to back-fill their biography. There's no earthly way it meets the criteria now, though. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you all have waaaay too much time on your hands. No one needs to see it. The only reason you found it is cus I linked it to the Cambridge Uni page as a joke. It's been here two months before any of you lot found it. So carry on finding really junk filled and trivial articles. It's really quite sad you take this so seriously, I aprreciate the need for moderation, but, as this page is not linked anywhere you could all just forget it! I mean, who is just going to search for 'St Legend's College?' apart from ALL the uni students who know about it. Chillax, and don't delete it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambs Parnell (talk • contribs).
 * 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.