Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rustington F.C.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rustington F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article recreated after deletion by prod and still no sources. Fails WP:FOOTY guideline of eligibility to play in the FA Cup and the FA Vase is not the same at all.No reliable secondary sources have been found to establish notability. The club is not even in the top league for the county. Charles (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Club plays at Step 6 of the English football pyramid, which has also been used as a notability guideline in the past (see here and here). By playing at this level, the club is eligible to compete in the FA Cup, but cannot due to lack of floodlights. Number 57 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can but it can't? You can't have it both ways. Clearly the club is not eligible.--Charles (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't play in the Cup because of certain conditions related to its ground, but it plays at a level at which clubs without this problem are eligible (the club could actually play in the cup if they really wanted by moving their home matches to another stadium like Durham City do (as they have a plastic pitch which is not allowed by competition rules)). Anyway, as noted in the two links to AfDs above (one of which subsquently links to many others), playing at this level has previously also been used to prove notability regardless of FA Cup playing. Number 57 22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also added a couple of references to the article. Number 57 10:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't play in the Cup because of certain conditions related to its ground, but it plays at a level at which clubs without this problem are eligible (the club could actually play in the cup if they really wanted by moving their home matches to another stadium like Durham City do (as they have a plastic pitch which is not allowed by competition rules)). Anyway, as noted in the two links to AfDs above (one of which subsquently links to many others), playing at this level has previously also been used to prove notability regardless of FA Cup playing. Number 57 22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can but it can't? You can't have it both ways. Clearly the club is not eligible.--Charles (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not eligible to play in the FA Cup, failing WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The FOOTYN criteria is a nonsense, because it would mean 6,000 French clubs are eligible for articles because there is no restriction on entry. Number 57 22:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - on further thought, this team plays at a notable level. Would still like to see the article improved though. GiantSnowman 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - regardless of not being eligible for the FA Cup. Is a team that can't even get itself floodlights really notable? Delusion23 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Number57's rationale. --Jimbo[online] 11:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the arguments put forward by number 57. To delete this article because they don't have floodlights seems like a technicality. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (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.