Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Football Stadia Improvement Fund


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Football Stadia Improvement Fund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested, no reason given. This fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG; the organisation itself has not been subject to significant coverage, passing mentions in news articles is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 12:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The article's creator put this on the talk page of this AfD rather than the AfD itself, for the sake of completeness I copy it here without implying support or otherwise: "The fund has helped a lot of lower level English clubs to develop their facilities and has been mentioned in other Wikipedia entries so surely there should be reference to this on Wikipedia so when it's read about in articles the basic information about the organization is available?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:GNG relevant phrase seems to be "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." General coverage of the topic appears to be more than trivial from my understanding of the sources. Most indicate the topic briefly but not trivially in reference to the actions taken by FSIF in support of improvement projects for the football community. This general trend leads me to put more emphasis on the last part of the statement from WP:GNG with regard to need not be the main topic. A strong specific case of non-triviality occurred in 2011 when actions taken by FSIF played a notable role in a public controversy involving Supporters Direct. According to at least one source, the public "disciplinary" actions of the FSIF threatened the existence of Supporters Direct after they withdrew a sizable grant in response to tweets made by SD leadership. While not yet incorporated into the article content, this seems like more than a trivial mention of FSIF and its notability within the football community. --N8 19:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It seems to me that a fund that has made grants of £50M, even over 50 years, is probably notable. Some football clubs, despite their success are denied promotion to becasue their ground is not of the standard required for the higher league.  This fund provides a way out of that bind.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - I am not aware of any notability guidelines that say having lots of money makes you worth of an article. I am aware of the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources - so where is that? GiantSnowman 08:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you define significant coverage? If it's not mentioned on a mainstream news channel or a website used by a large amount of people then it's surely not significant? Based on that I'm sure 90% of Wikipedia need removing? There are links on the page to what has been found but based on the following "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or casting a !vote based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." it should stand as an article, so the work done by this group can be added as found and future references as the happen? Robcolbie (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with the comments above about significant coverage. The organisation does one fairly basic thing - i.e. give money away to clubs to improve their grounds - this isn't something that needs a 1,000-word newspaper article to explain, so when its purpose is mentioned, I think this is probably enough. Certainly looking at Google News hits, the work of the organisation gets a lot of coverage in the media. Number   5  7  05:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree that this organization does not meet the standard of "significant coverage", I think the over-riding guideline in this instance should be WP:BASIC, which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this organization (as shown by a search on News and Highbeam), while not substantial, is certainly not trivial.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:47, 14 August 2015 (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.