Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andover New Street F.C.

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. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andover New Street F.C.

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

Sunday league team JustEase (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a case where I think we'd be better off making a decision on all the articles in clubs in this league than an individual decision on one club. It seems the claim to notability for all these clubs is identical (i.e. they're football clubs somewhat down the league pyramid), and it's going to be confusing if articles for clubs in these league are present or absent based arbitrarily on which pages happen to have been nominated for deletion. Unless there's a good reason why some clubs in this league are any more or any less notable than the others, I think the sensible options are to keep all, delete all, or merge all into one article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This club belongs to a 10th tier league where the consensus was to keep the article belonging to 10 tier clubs. So it deserves its own article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - suggest speedy closure unless the nominator comes up with a better rationale. The club is not a Sunday league team, so the nomination as it stands is false and misleading -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator is wrong - this isn't a Sunday league team, but rather a club playing in the national pyramid (and one that plays in the FA Vase). Number 5 7 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all your support, friends! At least I know that my hard work years ago did not go to waste! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I find ChristTheDude and Siva1979's arguments convincing. Cheers, Eisfbnore ^talk 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays at a high enough level, as determined by WP:FOOTY. Nominator is 100% incorrect in his/her assumption that this is just a "Sunday league team." Giant Snowman 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recommend a speedy close. The nominator's account is less than a month old, and theirs have been indef-blocked at fr:wp and three-day-blocked at no:wp.[1][2] Eisfbnore ^talk 20:27, 8 February 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.