- 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. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stratton United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally PROD'ed with rationale "Amateur team (stated as such in the article) playing only at level 15 of the English football league system. Fails WP:FOOTY project's notability rule of thumb of having competed at level 10 or higher or in a national cup. No sources found to pass GNG. Probably COI based on name of creator.", PROD then removed by article creator with no explanation whatsoever, so here we are..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure what the problem is with the page, it references the fa site, our squad, and its 100% accurate. We dont play in a high tier of english football, but why does that matter...we are still an established club in our town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenCollett (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet the very well established criteria. The above comment suggests a hefty dose of WP:COI is also likely. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - they fall well short of the Step 10 mark. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, currently playing in Step 15. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conflict of interest with a factual page? Im not expressing my opinions....everything on the site is 100% fact. Its a resource that people can look at when they draw us in cups etc. I really dont see what the problem is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenCollett (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Resources for people to look at should be placed on your own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for not meeting the general notability guidlines, but with the added flavour of failing the aforementioned football specific criteria too. Ben, the conflict of interest that 57 refers to is the fact that you play for the club, making your edits look like self-promotion. OBM | blah blah blah 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resources for people to look at should be placed on your own website, not Wikipedia?? The article is in the same format as every other football club on wiki...that statement makes no sense. The whole point of wiki is so that people can easily access factual information in one place...if 'resources for people to look at should be on their own site' then wiki would lose half of its pages. The only difference being that I do infact play for the club. But half the lower league sides on wiki (Cirencester Town for example) are made and updated by people involved in the club. Not to mention the fact that all of the football club articles on wiki will be created and maintained by die hard fans of the clubs....more COI? Anyway...if we dont meet the league standard to have a page then thats fine... BenCollett (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 19:23, 8 October 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.