Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wednesdayite


 * 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. Late discussion inclusion of reliable source material for the article rebutted the no reliable sources assertions. Jreferee   t / c  05:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wednesdayite

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fan group. This article has been here for a long time, with no reliable sources, and nothing to claim that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill football club's fan group. I tried a redirect to the club's article, but that got speedy reverted, so let's try this. Corvus cornix 23:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I would argue that Wednesdayite are a very notable fans group and should be represented by a Wikipedia page. The article was 'speedily reverted' due to myself editing the page at the time of the redirection edit. Wednesdayite are notable in that they are one of the most respected fans' trusts in the country and one of the biggest shareholders in the business. They seperate from the norm of being a run-of-the-mill football clubs' fans group due to the unique politics surrounding the group, which are widely reported in the media. They are one of the only fans' groups in the country that have no access to the club and are widely slated in the media by the club. If we require references and such, I shall learn to place them within the article as I can find multiple on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.202.151 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)   82.38.202.151 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Toon Army is not comparable as Wednesdayite is not only a generic term for Sheffield Wednesday fans, but is also the name of a prominent organisation that merits a page of it's own. This organisation is one of the most respected fans trusts in the country and has been at political odds with the football club, setting many precidents in terms of business and shareholder communications and precidents in the running of fans trusts. I agree the article does need updating and sources (of which there are many) adding to make it much more relevant to this, however. 82.38.202.151 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a number of relevant independent citations to add to the validity of this article and it's relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.202.151 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)  82.38.202.151 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Sheffield Wednesday - Wednesdayite is better known as a generic term for Wednesday fans, but doesn't deserve an article by itself per WP:NEO (Toon Army being redirected to Newcastle United F.C. is a good precedent). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - too much detail, no proof that this group meets the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and possible copyvio to boot. Qwghlm 09:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable fan group. - fchd 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have heard of Wednesdayite, a controversial Sheffield Wednesday supporters' grouping even among Wednesday fans, but WP:NOTE requires 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' and rather more than those few provided are needed here. There is no assertation of notability and the way it is laid out is all wrong - like a press release or something. --Malcolmxl5 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as fixed up per the Heymann standard. Plenty of verifable and reliable sourced have been added. Bearian&#39;sBooties 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maybe db-group. --Evb-wiki 13:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Number 57.--Bedivere 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it could certainly use a further clean-up and expansion, there's no doubting that, but there seems to be enough verifable information present to assert notability and distinguish it from a "run-of-the-mill football club's fan group." A quick scan of the Google News archive throws up a few decent articles too. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 22:43, 8 October 2007 (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.