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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League[edit]

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

PROD tag was not removed, but was contested by article creator with this edit summary so I am bringing it here. This is a wholly non-notable, minor, local, amateur sports league - no evidence of any notability whatsoever. Giant Snowman 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for a similar reason; PROD contested by same article creator in edit summary, this is a team which plays in the league, no evidence of notability.

Kay Street Baptist Church Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both clearly fail WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Govvy, fails WP:NSPORT iComputer SaysNo 15:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these also fail the general notability guideline as there are very few ghits to be found on either, short of directory pages and Facebook. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles' creator put the below on the talk page of this AfD, I move it here to ensure that everyone sees it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to editing on Wikipedia and so apologise for not doing things correctly so far. I have been reading the Wikipedia help section to try and remedy the problems. The two pages I have created concern for one - the South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League (SMCCFL). This is genuine league that has taken place for years. The SMCCFL's website can be found at http://www.leaguewebsite.co.uk/smccfl/Home to verify its authenticity. The second is a page for one of the teams - Kay Street Baptist Church Football Club. Again, I consider them to be of notable interst as they are a football club that anyone can join as part of the Church's role in the community. Their website can be found at http://kaystreetbaptistfc.co.uk/, which again proves their authenticity. I hope that you agree that these are notable and could suggest any revisions needed. Thanks, TJPGrey
Comment to article creator - please note that nobody doubts that the league and team exist, however the nominator contends (and several people seem to agree) that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, namely that the subject of an article needs to have been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The individual teams are certainly NN. I am not familiar with the level to which articles are allowed on leagues, but at best it can only be on the margins of notability. My own church has a football team, which plays in a local league. This is not the local secular league, because they play on Sundays, probably so that they could traditionlly watch their local League 1-4 team from the stands. The Christian leagues tend to play on Saturdays, so as not to interfere with church attendence. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both league and teams are not notable. There is a churches league in my local area and I have never seen any coverage of it at all, not even in the fairly parochial local paper..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2013 (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.