Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign 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   Delete. Consensus seems to be that the club is not notable. In establishing consensus, I weighed heavily the Keep opinions of Govvy and ChristheDude. However, the former is undermined by the fact that the player he cites clearly does not meet the specified criteria. ChristheDude's argument is probably "Weak" because it doesn't really amount to multiple, non-trivial references per WP:N. Another article like the Four Four Two one would certainly be good grounds for an argument for reinstatement. Dweller (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

White Ensign F.C.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The club fails to meet generally recognised criteria of having played at Step 6 or above, and has never played in the FA Cup or FA Vase. I don't believe the fact that they were once mentioned in Four Four Two makes them notable. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding the FA Cup, this team is a registered non-league level team, there for they qualify for the FA Vase non-league rounds. So your AfD statement sounds incorrect. That goes the same for all Essex Olympian Football League register teams. Govvy (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the club's record - they have never competed in the FA Vase or FA Cup. Being a registered club is irrelevant - they have to apply to play in the cup, and they either haven't, or have but weren't accepted. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe their ground has no lights therefore they aren't actually eligible to compete in the FA Cup or Vase..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on news coverage and a full-length article (not merely a mention) in Four Four Two (I have the issue in question at home) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I vote to keep the article based on the facts of additional citation in the article which supports the clubs existence with records of fixtures and results. Even if notability is small and the second fact is that they are a registered club with the FA. The club details are provided on the FA site which presents a club of non-league nature. To quote "Qwghlm" Clubs that a highly notable player (10+ caps for a top-level country, or 100+ appearances for a top-level club) has played for, for a significant period (e.g. one year or more). Well it not quite close enough, but they have help to produce Paul Benson who is known to a fair number of fans of league two. Which is what the BBC article is about. Which again is about the citation for the club and player. Govvy (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - for consistency with other recent AfDs of a similar nature. Never played at a notable enough level to establish notability, and appear to have nothing special about them to gain such notability for reasons other than their standard of football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - the fact that they are the 'unpromotables' due to their stadium issue, which is mentioned in the FourFourTwo article is quite significant itself. 116.197.246.203 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that isn't that significant, there are lots of clubs who are not eligible to be promoted due to the state of their grounds..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are certain inconsistencies. For example there is the claim that they are 'unpromotable' from Division One but the Essex Olympian Football League article shows them in the Premier Division. I also don't accept that having fielded a notable player makes them notable. Notability is not inherited; if it were we would have to keep all manner of school teams since most players will start with a school team or a youth club. I see no particular reason to depart from the accepted standards of notability for football clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, they were in Division One of the EOL when that was the name for the top division (they had divisions 1/2/3), and the only reason they are now in the Premier Division is that the league changed names (now having (Premier/1/2). - fchd (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete noting that the previously prodded team articles from this league have been deleted. Bettia   (talk)  11:24, 24 June 2008 (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.