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 speedy keep. Clearly notable but needs an overhaul and sources added. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C.[edit]

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

Long rambling story with no sources or focus. No sourcing found, largely redundant to parent. If there is keepable material here, then merge or WP:TNT Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Long rambling story" might be reason for it to not win a Booker Prize, but I don't see its relevance to a football club. We're not judging the article for its narrative qualities. We have an article on Oldham Athletic, with a vast number of pages in the related category. For an obvious notable UK football club, an article on their history seems entirely appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Football club histories are considered notable. The page may be in need of improvement, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Eagleash (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources available, if only the nominator had performed a 5 seconds Google Books search:
- Oldham Athletic on This Day: History, Facts & Figures from Every Day of the Year, by Dave Moore
- Oldham Athletic A Pictorial History, by Tony Bugby
- The Legends of Oldham Athetic, by Garth Dykes
- Legends of Oldham Athletic Afc, by Simon & Schuster
- Pine Villa and Oldham Athletic: A 100 Year Journey, by Stewart William Beckett
- Latics Lads: The Official Who's who of Oldham Athletic A.F.C., 1907-2002, by Garth Dykes

I'm not even venturing into other types of sourcing, since the topic is clearly notable. Next time, please don't forget to do a WP:BEFORE. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is clear consensus that club history articles such as this are notable and it would be a simple step to add sources to the page. Not too mention WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Kosack (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid breakout article from the main club article (many equivalent articles are FAs), and given that there are at least six published books on the history of the club (the existence of most of which was confirmed for me within the first two pages of a Google search (regular Google search, not even Google Books) for "history Oldham Athletic"), the notion that no sourcing could be found looks a bit ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Why is this article even brought to AfD, it needs a lot of help to improve it and not assign it to the wiki-bin, also a note to @TenPoundHammer:, can you please stop nominating articles for AfD which are well known subjects, just add needs citation tags to tops of article instead or simple go to google and get those citations! Govvy (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above . Clearly Valid split from main article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RetiredDuke: @Kosack: @ChrisTheDude: @Pharaoh of the Wizard:SO WHERE ARE THE SOURCES?!? Just saying they're there, or that the article is Useful, is in no means valid. Did any of you add any of the so-called sources you supposedly found? Are ny of you going to fix it, or are you just going to let it sit and rot in this shitty ass fucking state forever? Apparently just saying something is notable and useful is all we need anymore? In that case, let me make an article about the cup of gas station coffee on my desk. It exists, it's notable, and I don't need sources, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back off. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune substantially. There is far too much emphasis on the last few decades. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:57, 15 January 2018 (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.