Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolka Rovers 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolka Rovers F.C.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - They play in the fourth tier of the Irish league, which it appears is becoming the threshold for notable for clubs in the RoI. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  22:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment - Also, as TerriersFan would say, "The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  22:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment while consensus is growing that clubs in this tier are likely notable (which is great). However, general notability guidelines still require articles to have sufficient references to 3rd party sources where the club is the subject of the article.  This article still has none.  We cant just feel they are notable, it's got to be demonstrated via references.--RadioFan (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - DitzyNizzy pitches the arguments better than I could ever have done :-) TerriersFan (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as my two colleague put above, level 4 is notable! GiantSnowman 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This team has competed in national cup competitions, which is enough to pass the general rule of thumb for football club notability. Also, Google News provides quite a few hits which I believe would be enough to pass WP:GNG. Bettia   (talk)  09:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As I removed the prod because they play at Level 4 which is notable. BigDunc  10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, there is no clear claim of notability in the article.  Amateur clubs can meet WP:GNG with sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources but there are none in the article. As it the article reads today, its not possible for anyone not familiar with this club or others in the league to distinguish them from any other amateur club and it does not meet WP:NSPORT guidelines which require international play.
 * That page doesn't make any mention of notability guidelines for clubs, only for individual players....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Best I've found to go on. Do you know of something better?--RadioFan (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FOOTYN? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment that is an essay, has it reached consensus yet? I see lots of discussion on it but the tag on it indicates that it's not moved beyond an essay state.  If so, WP:NSPORT should link to it as another source for sporting notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NSPORT is also an essay, though, which means neither is more official than the other, so surely under those circumstances it is better to consider the one which sets out notability guidelines for clubs rather than the one which makes no mention of it at all...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (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.