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. Article recreated as a redirect to Chester F.C. (2010), but I definitely won't stand in the way of anyone redirecting to a dab page or something. –MuZemike 01:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chester F.C.[edit]

Chester F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Team has never appeared in the FA Cup, the normal threshold for notability for English football clubs. Most references are to non-independent sources or blog; BBC entry is focussed on stadium rather than team. Kevin McE (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but the first two principles of page naming are that it should be:

• Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
• Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).

Under these circumstances, it would make more sense that it remains where it is. Furthermore, Chester City is in the past now, as is its former name. It should look more to the future, hence the new Chester and the very least that they should do is mention on the page that Chester F.C. was the predecessor's former name. Those who were fans of Chester City before its dissolution and probably now fans of Chester would probably agree with my sentiment. There are many more lower-ranked obscure teams with its own page and as they are an 8th tier team, they deserve more than a (2010) suffix at the end of their name. Finally, as I'm sure you know, the new Chester F.C. cannot compete in the F.A Cup in the season after their foundation, so what do you expect us to do, wait until next year then remove the suffix? Exodus94 (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one citation of a reliable independent source, so assertions of GNG are unsupported: we don't allow posting of players' articles on the assumption that they will play in the sort of match that triggers notability, so why would we for clubs? The now defunct Chester City was more commonly known, right up to its demise, as Chester, in the same way that Peterborough United or Macclesfield Town are normally discussed using simply the name of the town, without the qualifier. Kevin McE (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help, Chester will imminently be receiving plenty of coverage on the League website, with club details, all results etc - just like all the other clubs in that league. It would be pretty silly to have 2010–11 Northern Premier League with one red link, and the Chester article would be endlessly recreated. I think the notability rule on the FA Cup was designed to weed out tiny clubs at Step 13 or whatever, not clubs with crowds in the hundreds or thousands who play at Step 8. But the article name should certainly have "2010" to differentiate between the original Chester and the new club. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, per previous discussion. Eliteimp (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eliteimp. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and keep Chester F.C. (2010) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why are there two identical articles for this club? Chester F.C. and Chester F.C. (2010) - one needs to be a redirect to the other, depending on what the club is actually called. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article needs to be called Chester F.C. (2010) because there was a Chester F.C. prior to that club being renamed Chester City F.C. We can't have the article for the new club having the same name as the original club - not possible at all. There needs to be a dab suffix for the new club. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it's been nominated 2010 times before... ;-)) Lugnuts (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as per CSD:A10, as it is a duplicate of the longer-standing Chester F.C. (2010) (note also the hatnote about redirection is incorrect). Once the duplicate is removed, argument can then commence about the best name for the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And I should also have said Keep Chester F.C. (2010), for the reasons already given. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and redirect it to Chester F.C. (2010) for reasons already stated. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The club is notable, and passes general notability guideline (article was kept at recent AFD). The duplicate should probably become a disambiguation page, as there is no consensus for either of the articles to be the primary topic. This AFD should probably be moved, but it's unclear whether this is the second for Chester F.C. (2010), or the first for Chester F.C. snigbrook (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Chester F.C. (2010) per above. Cavie78 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chester F.C. (2010), as that article is about the current club. --Jimbo^[online] 02:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I notice we already have a disambig page at Chester F.C. (disambiguation) - wouldn't it make more sense to use this page (Chester F.C.) for that purpose? Bettia (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article, re-create as dab page per Bettia, redirect other dab page here......hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.