Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blofield United F.C.

:{{la|Blofield United F.C.}} ([{{fullurl:Blofield United F.C.|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blofield United F.C.}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Football club which fails to meet the generally accepted notability criteria of having played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase (last 11 AfDs have all resulted in delete for clubs in this situation - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The last 11 successful ones perhaps. You are failing to list the ones that get withdrawn because during the AFD process it comes out that the team is actually notable after all. The whole point of AFD is to have a process to have people peer-review it, so that there is some consensus, rather than simply trying to slide it through by PRODing the article and failing to list it at WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. I'm surprised at your sarcasm given the number of your club AFDs that you've withdrawn recently. Nfitz (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have not failed to list any AfDs where clubs in this situation have not been deleted - the ones I have linked to are the 11 most recent AfDs on such clubs (the fact that some clubs were kept (as I withdrew them from the nomination) in number 11 is due me being confused over the place of the Hampshire League in the pyramid, and as I clearly stated in the introduction, all the clubs in the AfD that did fail to meet the criteria were deleted). Could you also point out where I have been sarcastic here? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am uneasy with Nfitz's comment here, which is focused on the nominator. Perhaps Nfitz would like to redact his comment and instead comment on the subject of the article and on whether it should be kept or deleted. Regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Fair enough, I was reacting to what appears to be a personal attack in the edit summary of the article where the AFD was introduced. But you are correct, that shouldn't come into play here. I've redacted part of my comment and will deal with elsewhere. The other part is simply a response to the nomination, which overlooks that the majority of similiar articles in his last AFD were withdrawn because they recognised as notable once a full discussion was held. As to whether this article should be deleted - I'm reserving judgement. The team has won a Step 7 league 3 times in the last 8 years, and as I understand it, wasn't promoted to Step 6 (apparently making them notable) because their grounds were not suitable? Nfitz (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see "they would have been promoted to Step 6 if only they hadn't had a rubbish ground" as a compelling reason to ignore the long-standing consensus that Step 7 clubs are not notable. Google turns up no reliable sources to get them through the general guidelines either..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• understandable - I had removed the Prod because it seemed to be a little close the line for just a Prod. Nfitz (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think even a majority of clubs at Step 5 and 6 meet general wikipedia guidelines to notability - multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources etc. I cannot find any worthwhile third-party coverage for this club, so it's a Delete from me. If User:Nfitz or anyone else can find such sources, I'll be happy to change my mind. - fchd (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question. Any reason it shouldn't simply be redirected to Anglian Combination or Blofield? That might be a better process than proding or AfDing these silly little articles. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Anglian Combination, there's no assertion of notability here, it's only two sentences long, and Anglian Combination is clearly a parent article. --Stormie (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. BigDunc^Talk 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Anglian Combination per Stormie. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.