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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hashtag United F.C.[edit]

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

Little known "YouTube" based football (soccer) club created by a person who hasn't got their own Wiki article. Orphan article, three sources linking from major British news agencies but no major sniffs of notability. Nordic Nightfury 10:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources for this article are three in-depth pieces in BBC Sport, the Telegraph, and the Sun. As far as sources for British football goes, they don't get much more reliable than that. Given that articles about sports clubs fall under WP:CORP, I would argue that this article definitely meets that bar. A Train^talk 13:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article already cites three significant articles on the club from national media sources going well beyond WP:ROUTINE. I would also observe the following articles indicating significant coverage in non-English language sources:

Fenix down (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails WP:FOOTYN but passes on wider WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 07:05, 20 October 2016 (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.