Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow City B.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. There appears to be a clear consensus that the article satisfies the guidelines on notability. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow City B.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I could find no coverage from the Herald Scotland and Glasgow Times which is a big red flag for notability. I could also find no other indication of notability from other sources. All of this is not too surprising given that the leage that they are a part of a third tier of UK basketball - third tier basketball teams might not be notable in countries with stronger basketball cultures than the UK so this too is a sign that they are not notable. Was accepted from AfC otherwise I'd have tried a redirect to Scottish Basketball Championship Men an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage that is referenced in this article is available on the sites mentioned above. It is often difficult to track because the name of the club, as mentioned in the coverage, changes with the club's sponsor, those sponsors being companies of one of Scotland's forefront businessmen. Searching for "Brightsiders" , "Glasgow Sports Division" and "Glasgow d2" brings up much coverage, especially during their most successful spell in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Recent coverage is less available because this club has only recently reformed at this level. The club may be in the third tier presently, however they have previously won four national titles in Scotland including the league and the National Cup competition on multiple occasions. Murdeigh (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As Murdeigh points out, the team has altered its name throughout its history due to sponsorships changes. A search under those names do turn up considerable sources. While a third-tier team today, it was one of the best basketball teams in Scotland during its height, winning the national title and several Cup titles. Alvaldi (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to pass WP:GNG with the sources in the article alone, I would have accepted this from AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no issues with you saying this should be kept since it meets GNG. But accepting at AfC simply means that it's "likely" to survive at AfD. This is a far lower standard than even the presumed notability which causes us so much angst. Some number of AfC accepts can end up deleted and that AfC reviewer would still be doing a good job. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barkeep49: Just to be absolutely clear, my AfC comment has no bearing on whether it's notable - it's notable since WP:GNG is met. Since you noted in the nom that it was created at AfC, I was simply trying to note that I agree with whoever accepted the article, if they were to see the AfD - not that this should be kept because it was accepted at AfC. (I think I've mentioned to you before my general standard for accepting articles at AfC - interpreting the "likely to be kept" standard - is if I would !vote keep on them at AfD. There are some minor exceptions, but anything less and you're better off leaving a comment on how the article could be improved.) SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidence of notability now in place. User:Davidstewartharvey

• Keep - Looking at the article as it currently stands it would seem the team meets notability on its historical achievements as Scottish champions and cup winners. I think, as has been said elsewhere, an issue is that the team has gone under other names in the past and this has caused some confusion. Dunarc (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking through the article I think it does satisfy the guidelines to stay on this site. HawkAussie (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2020 (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.