Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakefield AFC


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wakefield AFC

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recreated after PROD with rationale "non-notable club, has never competed at levels 1-10 or in an FA competition". Appears to be Too Soon for an article on this team. I can't access this The Athletic article which may be substantial coverage; everything else I find is press releases or local WP:MILL coverage like. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The Athletic article is definitely WP:SIGCOV (I have access) and other mentions such as  * show this gets far more coverage than your average non-league step 7 team. (*-possibly not WP:GNG-qualifying) SportingFlyer  T · C  21:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by SF. Article will need to be moved to Wakefield A.F.C. in line with standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 21:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have moved it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, never played above Step 7 or in an FA competition. One Athletic article can't be good enough; otherwise you open up the door for articles on dozens of grassroots clubs who have been featured in a magazine article. Kivo (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Athletic were the only GNG-qualifying source, I would not be !voting keep. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - looks to just about get over that GNG line Spiderone  16:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I wonder if this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Clearly an ambitious club who could start climbing the pyramid, but is that enough to justify an article or should we wait to see if they achieve anything on the field of play? For now could they be adequately covered in the main Wakefield article? Dunarc (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - meets GNG with Athletic article and other mentions, such as from BBC, Yorkshire Post. Not to mention lots of local coverage in the Wakefield Express. Nfitz (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - they certainly do have more coverage than most in their tier, but each source used to meet GNG needs to meet SigCov. Outside of the Athletic source, they likely wouldn't meet that, and then lots of the content is direct quotes. One more high quality article would likely do it. I'm happy to userfy etc as desired. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete To be excused the usual standards of having played at step 6 or in FA competitions, I'd expect to see notability established over a longer time period like Wallsend Boys Club. Also, the claim that Wakefield is the largest city without a professional football team is untrue, as Chelmsford is larger (I assume they've made the mistake of looking at the population of the district of Wakefield rather than the city itself).  Number   5  7  16:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to scrape over GNG per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG, so specific guidelines for clubs are irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2021 (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.