Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Mark's F.C. (Windsor)


 * 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 no consensus. This is a complicated one beyond the typical sports ones as we have the issue of what can reasonably be expected, sourcing wise, from a team that played so long ago. That said, the keeps are not particularly strong in their policy basis. With two relists that generated no input, I don't see a third establishing consensus. Before this comes back to AfD I'd suggest seeing if it can be handled editorially, possibly via a merger target as was mentioned. Star  Mississippi  02:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

St Mark's F.C. (Windsor)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Short-lived school club which ended up not playing in a notable competition, and which may have had one later international player in their ranks, perhaps (though I couldn't verify this). Lacks reliable, indepth sources about the club Fram (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football,  and England. Fram (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think any club which entered the FA Cup is worthy of inclusion - especially as there were two other St Mark's clubs around at the time (Guild and College) who could be confused for the Windsor club. Arthur Bambridge was listed as a St Mark's player in the reports of the Essex-Berkshire FA match of January 1877 and the Berkshire-Buckinghamshire FA matches of January 1877 and February 1878 (as well as in a school match against the Philberds school in March 1877).  The Bambridge brothers all seem to have gone to the school so it was a formative influence on a footballing dynasty. In Vitrio (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Being "worthy of inclusion" only depends on the attention a subject gets in reliable sources over a sustained period. E.g. it was recently affirmed that for individual sporters, even playing at the Olympics isn't sufficient on its own to merit inclusion, if we don't have further, indepth information. Fram (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair though there are tens of thousands of Olympic competitors. There were only 43 entrants to the FA Cup that year.  There is little quintessential difference between a club withdrawing if it thinks it is overmatched and turning up for a 16-0 thrashing (Farningham).  Nearly every FA Cup "proper rounds" participant has a wikipedia page (I am trying to catch up with those without - there are some locally notable names in that category at the moment) and it would be a little lopsided if this were the only club without one.  Especially as it is that rare anomaly; a school team entering the FA Cup (I think there were only ever two others). In Vitrio (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: No clear consensus, but also no real presentation of sources indicating significant coverage, needs more time to allow arguments related to GNG rather than personal opinion or local consensus to be established, but claims of notability per WP:FOOTYN are not grounded in any policy or guideline Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Imperial Service College. Govvy (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. There might be merit in a list or article about the history of association football in England in the 1860s/1870s, where this club can be mentioned and redirected to, but in the absence of that it should be deleted (or draftified). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be original research, surely? One of 43 FA Cup entrants makes them as notable as a team in the Championship today. In Vitrio (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - this club would be the biggest pass of WP:FOOTYN I've ever seen at AFD. I'm surprised we are here, and I'm not sure what's driving User:Fram to challenge such long-standing consensus. Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that Footyn is an essay, nothing more, and that this club hasn't played in the cup so doesn't even meet that essay anyway? Fram (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They entered the 1877–78 FA Cup, but it was a Walkover for Barnes F.C.. FootyN is an essay - but it has has reflected consensus in the project for over a decade. Nfitz (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They didn't play in the FA Cup, which was the minimum requirement even for that very loose essay. considering that actual guidelines have recently been shown to no lionger have the consensus of the broader community of editors, as they were too inclusive, it seems strange to try to defend this article by pointing to an essay which never made it to guideline in the first place, and where the article doesn't even meet the requirements anyway. Even if they had played though; playing in a cup which is open to any club ( as it was at the time, no league requirements) does not grant any automatic or even presumed notability. Fram (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're applying an anachronistically too high a standard for this era. To enter the Cup at this time a club had to be an FA member, which suggests a level of organisation and regularity.  There are at least a dozen clubs currently in the Premier/EFL today who were in existence in 1877, yet none of them entered the FA Cup; St Mark's were ahead of all of them in terms of looking at national competition.  The highest club today who did enter was Notts County.  I don't think notoriety criteria for other sports (there do not seem to be any for football at the moment) really work for the pre-professional era. In Vitrio (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG, at least as best as a club from that time could.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.