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 some. Consensus here and precedent previously has been to delete football clubs below a certain level deemed automatically notable. Clubs playing below that level can demonstrate particular notability; none of the clubs nominated but not struck seem to do so. This is important, because if any of the articles to be deleted are in future worked up to demonstrate particular notability (e.g. a significant FA Cup appearance would do the trick nicely) they would overcome this hurdle without the need for promotion through the league system. Dweller (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overton United F.C.[edit]

Football club that fails to meet the generally accepted notability standard, i.e. having played at Step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup or FA Vase (see this AfD for the last similar AfD). Was originally prodded, but removed by IP without explanation. To avoid wasting editors' time, I'll also add A.F.C. Stoneham, ~~Bishops Waltham Town F.C.~~, Clanfield (Hampshire) F.C., ~~Colden Common F.C.,~~ ~~Fleetlands F.C.~~, Hamble Club F.C., Otterbourne F.C. and ~~Paulsgrove F.C.~~, all of which play in the same league and are in the same position regarding their history, and none of whose articles extends beyond five sentences. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, these are the articles that are still part of this nomination:

Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~. I've only reviewed the first two teams (well second and third actually), and it's clear that Bishops Waltham Town F.C. have played at level 10 - and here's a contemporary link stating this. This is the problem with these multiple deletes, as trying to eliminate a half-dozen articles at a time results in a lack of proper review of them. I've previously noted that bundling articles like this doesn't meet the guidlines for bundling in WP:AFD ("If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately."). Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The website appears to be mistaken - they were at level 11 in 2006-07 - see Tony Kempster (Wessex One is level 10 and BWT were in Wessex Two). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it appears that they did play at Step 10 in previous seasons though, so I shall withdraw them. However, I have double-checked on the FCHD and none of the others have played above Wessex 2/3 (renamed in 2006-07, hence the confusion) (see Overton, Stoneham, Clanfield, Colden C, Fleetlands, Hamble Club, Otterbourne and Paulsgrove). пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't gone through all the teams, but it appears Colden Common F.C. played at Level 9 in 1999/2000 according to http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/archive99-00/hampgrid.htm - in the Hampshire Premiere league which is listed as level 9 at http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/archive99-00/gridsindex.htm. I'll stick to a keep, but I think this would be best dealt with team-by-team. Though as many of these teams did play for years in the old Hampshire League, and Hampshire Premier was Level 9, and presumably Hampshire 1 was Level 10, I'm concerned that some of these other ones may also be notable.Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll remove Colden Common. However, prior to the creation of the Conference North/South (2004) every league was one level higher, so I think we should see Level 10 in 1999 as Level 11 today (otherwise this could lead to all teams playing in county leagues prior to 2004 being classed as notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've removed three more following an explanation of the league history here. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that my work has been mis-represented! It was an attempt to show that these clubs are not notable, rather than the other way around. Since the Wessex League was formed, only one Hampshire League club ever got accepted for the Vase, and that was the special case of Petersfield after they got relegated from the Isthmian League. The participation in the Vase was the basic reasoning behind the border between Level 10 and Level 11 being the presumed split between notability and non-notability (Special circumstances of individual notability not withstanding). Level 10 now is at about what Level 8 was 20 years ago, it's local football, just a step up from the bulk of county competitions. I'd certainly deem all those clubs whose nominations have been withdrawn as non-notable. Top division of the Hampshire before 1985 - OK, but I'd have difficulty supporting any other Hampshire League clubs. I've been to some of those mentioned here and have seen many other Hampshire League games before it merged into the Wessex, and have a reasonable idea of the standard of play as well. - fchd (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that all these are pretty minor teams, I don't think any of them are notable. Even those which may have had brief spells in the top division of the old Hampshire League are difficult to find substantial, multiple, non-trivial reliable sources about. Even the likes of Bishop's Waltham Town. I would be inclined to Delete all - fchd (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The four that are left have played at Step 6, but not recently. However I am not fully comfortable in removing them as they seem to meet criteria. Where is this "criteria" defined? Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria is defined by the consensus of numerous past AfDs (more than 10),including:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton Electricity F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Express F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matlock United F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Deportivo Galicia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookham Dean F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stansfeld O&BC F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakley United F.C. (England)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Chelmsfordians F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spelthorne Sports F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnoldswick Town F.C.

- And was previously part of WP:CORP until it was unilaterally removed here, as well as being repeatedly covered in the WP:FOOTY talk page, including here. As explained above, the four in question played at Step 6 before the current Step 2 (Conference North/South) was introduced - it was the county league level of the time. Using the argument that they played at Step 6 prior to 2004 would mean that most clubs currently at Step 7 are notable, when past consensus states that they are clearly not. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not 100% sure the striked through ones oughtn't be deleted, but I'm willing to follow precedent in allowing them. The remaining ones should definitely be deleted per accepted precedent, the lack of reliable coverage at that level, and a general lack of notability. Vickser (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those remaining per fchd. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The club itself is fine, were there to be any non-criteria players created out of it then they would have to go. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "the club", which one(s) are you actually referring to? I'm completely confused now as to which article(s) are still covered by this AfD..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which goes to why we shouldn't be bundling articles into an AFD when there is going to be debate about their notability. It would also help if people followed step III of the WP:AFD#How to list multiple related pages for deletion, which would make the AFD a lot clearer. I've just done this now at the top of the article - I hope everyone is okay with that. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The bundling is not the issue - the articles are identical in terms of content, and it was only confusion over the history of the Wessex/Hampshire League which has caused the problem. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In terms of knowing which club this user is referring to, I think the bundling is the issue. I don't think they are identical. Three clubs date back to the 1990s, but one dates back to the 1960s, and I'd be a lot more comfortable if the history of that one was known. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is wrong, the club (Clanfield) was actually founded in the 1980s (see their website). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information to Hampshire Premier Football League. While these teams have played at level 10 historically, I've been convinced that the level 10 criteria should only apply to after the creation of Conference North and Conference South a few years ago, and that level 9 would be more appropriate for the years these teams were level 10. However as they are borderline, then any useful material should be merged into the Hampshire Premier Football League article. Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2008 (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.