Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulleskelf Vikings


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ulleskelf Vikings

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tenth-tier football club from non-notable league, non-notable per WP:NSPORT and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability, unreliable references per WP:RS, zero hits on Google News search, zero hits on ordinary Google search for "Ulleskelf Vikings". MuffledThud (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Up and coming football team soon to be featured in FourFourTwo magazine. No reason for deletion. User:ilfenomeno 11:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.19.67 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sunday league teams are pretty much inherently non-notable. Additionally, the league they play in is not at the tenth level of the English football league system, I can guarantee that they don't play in a 5,000-capacity stadium, and I can find no trace of a "Josh Rose" having played for any of the clubs mentioned, so it's not looking good for the believability of anything in the article.  Oh, and "soon to be featured in FourFourTwo magazine", even if it's true, is unlikely to be enough to pass the GNG and is also blatant crystal ballery (I'm skeptical as to why the mag would even do an article on a newly-formed Sunday league team, but maybe I'll be proved wrong if said article ever does appear......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - if this club ever rises high enough to be considered notable the article can be re-created, however at the moment there is no notablility at all. The league they are in is certainly not the tenth tier of the English league system and as ChrisTheDude has found no verifying information about the only former professional player everything about it looks dubious. The comment that the club is set to appear in FourFourTwo magazine does not mean that the club becomes notable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — a purely local phenomenon, no way close to meeting the requirements for notability. Report back when the visions seen in the crystal ball come true.  Favonian (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I may be overstepping the mark but I get the feeling that if this article does end up being deleted then it will just crop up again anyway. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, local low-level amateur team. GiantSnowman 12:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage to show notability. Much of current article looks like a hoax. Quantpole (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Chris says it all for me. (I also find it bizarre that FourFourTwo would do an article on a Sunday league team, considering they rarely cover anything in England below the Championship.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on above statement - I think the defender of this article is saying this more out of hope than any kind of fact, although I may be wrong. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in secondary sources Spiderone  19:55, 30 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.