Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunderland A.F.C. Reserves and Academy

:{{la|Sunderland A.F.C. Reserves and Academy}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Sunderland A.F.C. Reserves and Academy}})

Contested PROD, reason was: We don't generally carry articles about youth or reserve teams - maybe some mention in the first team article at Sunderland A.F.C. would be OK, but I don't think WP:NSPORTS supports a separate article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

:Delete As per nom, we don't go down to this level. Could possibly merge into the main club article. GedUK  15:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

:Keep It is incorrect to suggest that these articles are not normally carried. A quick scan shows that Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bolton, Arsenal, Spurs, Aston Villa, Birmingham City and West Ham all have articles on the reserves and academies. Sunderland would make twelve, which is more than half of the Premier League sides. Quentin X (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I know it's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but {{category|English reserve football teams}} disproves the nom's idea that reserve team articles don't exist on Wikipedia. I think the article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I am clearly mistaken, apologies - I would like to withdraw this nomination. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2011 (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.