Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 no consensus. While I think that my previous relist has been amply justified by the spirited discussion that followed, I also feel that at this point it is clear that there is absolutely no consensus on the possible notability of this club. Another relist is excessive, so I am ending this now. Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C.

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cray Valley Paper Mills F.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)

WP:GNG trumps WP:FOOTYN for club notability. With the deletion of Dontan on GNG grounds despite having played in the national cup FOOTY:N can no longer be used to save articles. Cray are a team that play in a regional 9th division football league. In 99 years they have never progressed past the prelim round of the FA Cup. The FA Vase is not the national cup so their only 2nd round appearance is irrelevant. The only thing I found specifically about Cray was a loan goalkeeper headbutting the post 3 times before punching it. Dougal18 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per clear consensus from numerous AfDs that playing in the FA Cup or FA Vase is sufficient for notability for English football clubs (most recent AfD here). The Dontam outcome is relevant to Thai clubs but not here. All clubs at this level in England have articles (possibly bar a couple promoted to this level at the end of last season that haven't been created yet), so deleting this one would lead to inconsistency in the information Wikipedia provides. Number 57 18:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those were decided before the Dontan AFD. To suggest different standards for different countries is discriminatory. To claim that the Vase (a cup for 9th division or lower clubs) grants notability is ridic and ignores GNG. Your keep argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and forgets that if one brick is removed then the whole wall can go with it.Dougal18 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, this is not a discrimination issue - as I have said repeatedly in recent discussions, the cutoff point for club notbility is going to be different in different countries - for example, playing in the Coupe de France could not be used as a notabililty factor for French clubs as over 8,000 clubs enter the competition. Secondly, you seem to be labouring under the misconception that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is always a problematic argument, when it is perfectly valid to use it to ensure consistency in Wikipedia coverage. Number 57 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just because the FA Cup has a tenth of the teams it's a case of "welcome in lads" whereas for their French counterparts it's "non"? Consistency can be ensured by a mass deletion of clubs that don't meet GNG.Dougal18 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number 57. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number 57/existing consensus. Nzd (talk) 18:29, 11 Augustc2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know if Dougal18 is on a witch hunt, but there is historic consensus that these lower clubs have enough notability that qualifies under WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number 57.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am aware of consensus &c, but I do find it interesting - and depressing - that "Number 57" so unquestionably accepts the Anglosphere Only Movement. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appearing in the FA Cup doesn't guarantee notability; but it certainly doesn't mean that they're not notable. I'm not convinced all teams in the Southern Counties East Football League are independently notable; a redirect to that page would definitely be better than deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the Dontan AfD was probably correctly decided based on what sources are easily available or searchable on the internet (I know we had someone who spoke Thai, but after some digging I think they were probably notable due to television coverage.) I do not think it means that WP:FOOTYN is irrelevant, but rather WP:FOOTYN is a presumption that can be overcome if WP:GNG is unavailable. In this case, steps 9 (and even 10) of the English non-league are quite well documented in local sources. Furthermore nominator may simply have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as per their nomination here, claiming a "bias" towards English football: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FA_Cup_semi-finals SportingFlyer talk 12:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment: Given that our policy states that clubs should meet the GNG, why in the hell doesn't anyone look at the sources and try to establish it via that? I see basically no comment on sourcing here and no indication that anyone has even bothered to do a search. Please stop this insistence that FOOTYN is an SNG, and actually look at the sources and how this particular club stacks up. @SportingFlyer: per your comment, note that "local coverage" usually isn't enough to establish notability via the GNG, topics usually require national or at least regional level coverage to meet the GNG (small local papers etc are usually discounted in notability discussions). All I could find was limited local sourcing: [1] or sourcing that isn't exactly about the team [2][3]. I'm curious if anyone can find anything better, because if this were any other topic, people wouldn't be screaming 'keep' or 'speedy keep' based on the sourcing I am seeing. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think FOOTYN exists out of nowhere, especially the "Step 10 club" rule? I'm considering "local coverage" to be British newspapers, including ones dedicated to non-league football. There are and have been numerous non-league directories published about English football, their histories are recorded in databases specific to English football, groundhoppers consistently discuss these clubs in blogs ([4]), and local papers consistently write articles about results. They are well documented as a group through routine coverage, and no original research is needed to write these articles (unlike, possibly, Dontan). A Google search of my own brings up 48,000 results including a Google "Matches, News and Standings" of their most recent F.A. Cup score. Obviously not all of those sources will show notability, but that only encompasses online sources for a club that has been around since 1919. SportingFlyer talk 05:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst WP:FOOTYN is not a SNG, the English club rule is a de facto one and has been consensus for well over a decade. The reason it's not an actual SNG is because there's nowhere to record it – it was listed in WP:NCORP in 2006, but was removed for being overly-specific, and WP:NSPORT doesn't cover teams. In the absence of an appropriate guideline, it has been recorded at FOOTYN for reference. Number 57 07:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be generally useful as a 'rule of thumb', but it fails as a rule of thumb if it is so open as to be often contrary to the GNG. You can't argue that a team that has no sourcing to meet the GNG should be declared notable based on this arbitrary criteria. That's what SNGs are for, and if you want FOOTYN elevated to one, run an RfC on WP:Village pump (policy) (I doubt that such an RfC would succeed). Still no one has pointed out how this club comes even close to meeting the general notability guideline. SportingFlyer accurately states that database histories, blogs, and routine match result listings are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Shoehorning unsourcable articles on low level clubs onto the encyclopedia is a direct violation of WP:NOT. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree it's contrary to the GNG, though. I never stated they are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The club is mentioned in at least number of articles on kentishfootball.co.uk, kentsportsnews.com, kentonline.co.uk, nonleague.today, thenonleaguefootballpaper.com, and the FA's web site [www.thefa.com/news/2015/Oct/31/fa-vase-round-up-31-october-2015] (not a primary source, even though the club is a member of the association). Local sources are no less reliable than national sources, either. There are self-published sources which are more reliable than you would see for a normal corporation (since they're clearly not sponsored) such as [5] or [6], as the writers aren't promoting products randomly, a normal WP:NCORP concern. Their statistics are noted on several different websites [7]. I'm sure I have information on them in a book that's in storage, likely demonstrated by the bibliography [8] is a good place to demonstrate non-league football teams get written about a lot. Remember when you used to buy independently written league guides and directories for non-league football? This is just interesting to me and not a part of my argument, but they even have a Vietnamese Wikipedia article [9].
Furthermore, I agree Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a collection of indiscriminate information, but this article has nothing to do with either of those concerns. The article is validly prosed, as opposed to being in a list like "Cray Valley Paper Mills | Badgers Stadium" - and this isn't your local Sunday league side that's completely un-source-able. The Dontan article was interesting - and as I noted, it may have passed WP:GNG if one could access Thai television sources, even though I couldn't get it over the line. SportingFlyer talk 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those cited sources are even close to being a source that is significant, independent and reliable to the degree required by WP:GNG. Based on the complete lack of sources demonstrated, and a lack of any that I could find, I am forced to change 'comment' to 'delete'. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I searched in the british newspaper archive but I can't find anything significant there either.[10] — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per N57 and prior AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 11:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment I have not looked for sources for this club. However I hope that the closer takes note of the quality of the argument presented; the vast majority of these comments do not make a true argument for notability, citing WP:FOOTYN which most definitely is not WP:NFOOTY. It's important to remember why SNGs exist: as a shortcut not a replacement to proving that an article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:N. It is presumed that if an article topic passes SNG that there will be enough sources available to satisfy GNG. I don't have time at the moment to evaluate the sourcing offered by SportingFlyer but appreciate their efforts to make a GNG argument rather than relying on a project guideline in an AfD. If footy fans feel that FOOTYN should be more than it is, at minimum I would think about getting community consensus to incorporating AfD results into WP:OUTCOMES if not WP:NFOOTY. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than the "vast majority", only two of the seven editors who have so far stated support for keeping the article have referenced WP:FOOTYN. However, you are probably right about trying to get this listed in WP:OUTCOMES – given the clarity of consensus over many years, hopefully this shouldn't be too difficult. I think the only reason it hasn't been done already is that there haven't been any serious issues until the White Ensign AfD. Number 57 19:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They have cited your original comment, which doesn't directly cite FOOTYN (likely on purpose given the close at Dontan)or not, see below, but clearly contains the same content and argument as FOOTYN. I'd also like to point out that arguing that "all clubs at this level have articles" and "deleting this one would lead to inconsistency" is a clear violation of WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite FOOTYN in the White Ensign AfD despite it being before the Donatan one, so please don't make bad faith assumptions. Thanks, Number 57 20:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: YOU added the 'step 6' criteria to FOOTYN during the White Ensign AfD... Apparently in violation to that page's own hatnote indicating that the page should not be changed without discussion at WT:FOOTY. It wasn't there for you to cite in your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C. (2nd nomination) at the time you made your !vote. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite FOOTYN in this AfD or this AfD or this AfD either, despite it theoretically being possible to use both in favour of deletion or keeping based on the lack of or history of cup participation. All I'm asking is for you to withdraw your bad faith comment. Thanks, Number 57 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not bad faith, I never said that it would be untoward for you not to cite FOOTYN. However, it is clear that your original comment, regardless whether it cites FOOTYN or not, still makes direct reference to the content of FOOTYN. This accusation of bad faith seems little more than a distraction from the point of the conversation. You commented above indicating that Barkeep49's comment was invalid because users weren't directly citing FOOTYN, yet they were citing you, and you were parroting the content included at FOOTYN (that you yourself added). I am seriously considering an RfC to rewrite WP:NTEAM. Instead of 'not applying to teams' and pointing to the GNG, it should simply and clearly state that teams must meet the General notability guideline, and that notability is WP:NOT INHERITED from leagues that teams play in. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You inferred that I deliberately avoided mentioning FOOTYN because of the outcome of the Dontan AfD, which suggests that I am attempting to Wikilawyer.
Also, my addition to FOOTYN was mainly around clarifying that playing at step 6 was deemed to be the cut-off point for English clubs. The part about playing in national cups (which is what I based my argument on above) was already there. Number 57 21:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I already added clarification to my comment above. Please drop it. Regarding 'cutoff points' Please read WP:NRV. SNGs (or indeed notability essays by wikiprojects) are not 'alternatives' to the GNG, they should represent shortcuts that indicate what is likely to be notable under the GNG. This is why all the parts of WP:NSPORT say "presumed notable" rather than "inherently notable". If a topic that meets one of 'cutoff points' of WP:NFOOTY can be demonstrated to not have sourcing sufficient for WP:NRV or WP:GNG, it is not notable. However, it is difficult to demonstrate a negative in many cases, which is why cutoff points in our notability SNGs are generally chosen high, so that articles are not presumed to be notable when they are not, and we can generally avoid arguments about source searching. The cuttoff point chosen by FOOTYN, and the Wikiproject Football community generally, is too low, and has not been vetted by the wider community. A consensus on a series of AfDs frequented by football invested editors does not represent general consensus by the wider community, and can't be substituted for it to support the content of FOOTYN as a psuedo-SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not too low. For instance, in 2009, a step 11 (below the threshold!) was found to pass WP:GNG: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St_Blazey_A.F.C.. I don't mind the guidelines being reformed, either — for instance the unsourced Wichita Jets passed an AfD (though they may be notable, the AfD was speedy kept because the nominator got the sport wrong.). SportingFlyer talk 22:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: your comment seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what the subject specific notability guidelines are supposed to do. They represent a cutoff point above which all topics should be notable, but do not represent a claim or argument that all topics below this point are not notable. Of course it is possible for players below the guidelines set out in WP:NFOOTY to be notable, they only have to pass the GNG. The same is true of clubs below step ten; if they meet the GNG they are notable. A good SNG on football clubs would pick a cuttoff point above which ALL clubs meet and exceed the minimum requirements of the GNG, and step ten certainly appears too low to meet that bar based on this and other AfDs that I have seen recently. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to endorse this explanation of what a SNG is and what purpose it should serve. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misunderstand my point, then, because I agree with you about the purpose of an SNG. My point is and continues to be the assumption Step 10 clubs pass WP:GNG is valid. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: You're right that you did not cite FOOTYN and lots of the people said per you. My original comment should have been clearer. My larger point remains. Your argument isn't policy based. It's an allusion to an WP:OUTCOMES type argument but since it's not in OUTCOMES, or any other place where there's been community scrutiny of the idea, the discussion here should be about whether Cary Valley Paper Mills FC meets GNG or doesn't. I haven't spent the time to look which is why I made a comment not a !vote but the lack of policy/source discussion at AfD struck me as unusual hence my comment to the closer. Speaking personally, I tend to take a pretty hardline view that the guidelines are what they are and am not a fan of exceptions, but do (generally speaking) support most efforts made to make those guidelines more inclusive. I'm an inclusionist at heart, if more on the narrow side in practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Like I said, the reason this has never been listed at OUTCOMES is because no-one has had a serious problem with it up until recently. As a result, the consensus of the AfDs in the clubs is all we have to go on to prove that editors believe this is an appropriate bar for notability. Like you, I would also say that I have a pretty hardline view on the guidelines and have nominated numerous articles for deletion, such as season articles that fails WP:NSEASONS or players that fail WP:NFOOTY, as well as clubs for deletion where they fail the threshold under discussion here (just take a look at my deleted contributions list to see how many football articles I've prodded or AfD'd). However, where a club article does pass what has always been the accepted threshold, I have put a lot of effort into improving them to ensure that they are worthwhile encyclopedia entries (this article only had two references before I rewrote it a couple of years ago). Number 57 21:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: From what I have seen based on the AfDs you previously provided, most teams within the criteria at FOOTYN are notable, the vast majority in fact. The problem is that there are some teams that only barely qualify once or twice to scrape into the bottom of things like the FA cup. White Ensign for example, hasn't actually yet played in the FA cup as far as I can tell,[11] and is only eligible and at step 6 because of the very recent Addition of Division One South to the Eastern Counties Football League. The club in this AfD has only ever played a few games each season in the preliminary round of the FA cup [12], and that hasn't garnered enough coverage to meet the GNG, from what I can tell. Can you accept that some clubs that scrape the bottom of the criteria at FOOTYN simply aren't notable enough to meet the GNG? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)'[reply]
In any set of articles that pass an SNG (or a consensus similar to one in this case), there are always going to be a small number skirting around the edges of GNG; as an example, we have articles on every person ever to be a member of the Knesset (most of which I have written). These people all pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, but there are a few, mostly people well down party lists and were brief replacements at the end of Knesset terms, who it would be difficult to show passed GNG and we are sometimes reliant on their listing on the Knesset website for any information about them.
When we have these clearly defined sets of articles, there is a question over whether it is beneficial to Wikipedia to have a complete set or not. I would argue strongly that it is beneficial to readers to ensure that we have the entire set of articles for completeness and consistency, and I disagree with the comments above about WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE – these articles are not directory listings or a table of statistics, but instead properly written encyclopedia entries. This is also hardly an obscure article; it gets around 700 pageviews a month – this is potentially 700 readers who are going to miss out if this article is deleted. So ultimately, even if an article like this could be shown to fail WP:GNG, I'd invoke WP:IAR as I believe its presence is a net positive. Number 57 11:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent point. SNGs, especially in sports, are over-inclusive. I have seen athlete articles at AfC who would fail WP:GNG but pass the requisite SNG. SportingFlyer talk 15:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Fair enough if no one has had an issue until recently, but now that an issue has been raised, all the more reason to bring it to a wider audience to get a sense of true project consensus, I would suggest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I now have looked at sourcing for this club. Given that it's 100 years old I would have expected to find a plethora of options, including those of the type that would be found by the kind of British newspaper archives search ICPH did. Match reports are generally not considered the kind of significant sourcing needed to establish notability (but obviously can be used as sources in the article when notability has been established). The most significant sources lacked independence or were not reliable. I echo Masem's point below that I would hope for people to produce sources which satisfy WP:N/WP:GNG but for the time being have give a !vote to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. It does not meet the SNG WP:NFOOTY (not to be confused with the essay WP:FOOTYN). The vast majority of Google hits I see are mere fixture listings, and the rest don't seem sufficient to be deemed significant coverage. The refs currently in the article are to stats sites, non-independent sites, or trivial mentions. I'm not a football fan, so would welcome anyone that can point to significant coverage that I have overlooked. It would seem that if an AfD contests whether an article meets GNG, the response would be to identify the sources, not to echo essays or points not supported in established guidelines.—Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, WP:NFOOTY is only for people. Recently, there are a number of match reports in secondary sources, such as their win over division 3 AFC Wimbledon, who wrote about the team they played, and their runs to recent cup finals in spite of the odds: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and in 2017 that was a historic cup win [19]. Not notable, but they also get mentioned in BBC Results, likely one reason why the Step 10 guideline exists. [20] Keep in mind this team has been around since 1919 - I haven't been able to source historical articles yet (due to time and inability to access sources), but I remain convinced significant coverage of this team exists. SportingFlyer [[User talk:SportingFlyer for thier efort in searching. |talk]] 07:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point regarding NFOOTY is that it is the only football SNG. Not meeting that, GNG needs to be met.—Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two links from kentishfootball.co.uk are extensive enough to count towards one source of significant coverage, as GNG stteds that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The next two from afcwimbledon.co.uk are the AFC Wimbledon team itself writing about their own opponent, which doesn't seem independent. The following two from londonfa.com, an organization that "are responsible for developing and supporting all grassroots football in London." This is not independent. Regarding southlondonclub.co.uk, the site is a for a "local membership card to help support the best independent businesses in South London." Sounds promotional and not independent. I agree that the BBC trivial mention is not notable. Having reviewed these, I still mainitain my intitial !vote that GNG is not met.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bagumba's assessment, and I'd like to commend SportingFlyer for their effort in searching and finding the kentishfootball sources. If anything else to establish 'multiple' can be found, I'm happy to change my !vote, but currently the kentishfootball sources are the only ones that meet GNG requirements. I'd normally like to see some sort of source reviewing the club itself, rather than just covering the actions during a game, but the best I could find is this single paragraph in the London Economic reviewing thier grounds. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the londonfa.com and afcwimbledon sources are independent enough. Still, their back-to-back finals appearances in the London Senior Cup final generated a lot of coverage - you could bet on the games and the finals were picked up on directory websites such as goal.com [21], Soccerway [22], and in France [23] and there are match reports in other independent newspapers as well [24]. I also disagree the South London Club is "promotional" because it's not written like an advertisement for the club or the card. I admit it's borderline, but it's a borderline keep. SportingFlyer talk 03:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition. Sources in this discussion seem to indicate GNG is satisfied, particularly considering the 100 year history of this club. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless if one thinks FOOTYN is valid as an SNG, I will point out that it presents the notability for clubs based on a rebuttable presumption (the standard for all SNGs), and Dougal here has apparently given a rebuttal (that there are no reasonable independent secondary sources from a reasonable search that they have done from their side) to that presumption. Anyone !voting strictly on saying it passes FOOTYN is not addressing that rebuttal. Those !votes need to show that valid sourcing that covers the topic in detail (not primary sources, not just box scores or stats) exist to some degree. It doesn't have to be the extent of all possible sourcing for the club, but it needs to demonstrate that the rebuttal challenge was wrong. That I do not see yet in this discussion - there's arm-waving sources exist but it's time for those actual sources to be shown and linked for review. --Masem (t) 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Masem: the nominating user has a history of actively deleting content including a couple short-term blocks over content which was removed, and has unsuccessfully nominated an article in the past accusing the project of a bias towards English football. Please note I'm not saying this deletion was necessarily in bad faith, but I am frustrated, however, that the very first step towards a discussion on how the Dontan AfD might affect WP:FOOTYN was by trying to "tear down the whole wall" citing discrimination as opposed to having a constructive discussion in another forum. Also, I've already linked several sources, including a couple showing the club was the lowest-ranked club (by league) in history to win a cup that has been contested since the 1880s. SportingFlyer talk 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to keep the issue of whether FOOTNY is legit or not out of it. We have to remember that we do not have inclusion guidelines, we have notability guidelines, and they have to show that a topic is covered by independent secondary sources (which clearly this doesn't right now) or can be presumed that it likely has been or will be with more in-depth searching, with that being a rebuttable challenge. A seemingly fair challenge has been raised, so it's time to show that there's source better sourcing out there. Remember that we're looking for secondary coverage - transformative information, not just repetition of facts or records. --Masem (t) 15:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on the sources. I've provided a number of sources so far showing the club receives consistent independent secondary coverage. SportingFlyer talk 15:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN and per significant previous consensus at AfD. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways - just because Dontan was deleted doesn't mean this should. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's not always an invalid argument. I wonder if anyone who cited that has actually read it. Besides, the sources are enough to meet GNG, so this is all moot anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Specifically which sources? I have done a pretty thorough search myself and evaluated those provided by SportingFlyer (the only 'keep' editor here who seems interested in actually looking), and I and other have found them lacking. It isn't really possible to understand your claim that the GNG is met unless you provide the sources that demonstrate that. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Kentish Football and BBC sources, which by themselves should be enough to establish GNG, there's [25], [26], [27], [28], and several others. There appear to be more results when searching for "Cray Valley PM" than when using the full name. Smartyllama (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed above that the Kentish Football sources count as one. The BBC source is the shortest of short mentions, nothing more than a name listing among Kent's other football teams; very far from anything approaching 'significant' coverage. For the other sources you listed: #1 literally has a title, a synopsis from one of the team's websites directly copied, and a bunch of photos (not 'significant'). #2 is not about the team, it is a story about the goalkeeper pitching a hissy fit and contains next to no information about the team. #3 appears to be a short press release about a manager leaving the team, and again contains next to no information about the team (not 'significant'). Overall the information in these sources can't really be used to support anything about the club. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know two editors who I respect have said they're counting Kentish Football as one source - a stance I'm not entirely sure I agree with. However, my reservation was that I could find no sense of their editorial policy to make judgement about it being RS or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly not sure. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also gave the benefit of the doubt on Kentish Football. I am not a football fan, and am not from the UK. Frankly, this is always a risk when people try to determine notability about a subject they are not very familiar with, in countries they are not experts on. It would be even worse if this was in a foreign language. Not all Google hits should be automatically considered to be an RS for Wikipedia purposes, and most are not significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually probably say that [this source] is the next best one after the Kentish Football sources, but even then seems to fail on being a solid WP:RS source (no idea what their editorial policy is or on how they choose what to cover). The article was written by Mike Green, presumably this Mike Green, who doesn't appear to have any connection to the team so is presumably independent. The article is about the team's performance during a cup final, but contains little to no information about the club otherwise (borderline significance IMO). Interested to hear your opinion on this one Bagumba. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (and it probably doesn't matter anyway but what the heck) I can't see anything that would suggest that Mike Green, a Kent-based journalist, is the same person as Mike Green, a West Country-based footballer. Mike Green isn't exactly a rare name, so there's no compelling reason to believe they are the same person..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere: No comment if it's reliable. As for the content, without more coverage of Cray's regular games, I'd be more inclined to think it might prove that the league or it's championship game are notable, not that the specific teams that play in it are.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personally I would change WP:FOOTYN to only accept FA Cup participation as being notable (so Amateur Cup, Trophy and Vase wouldn't be), but that's just me. As this club has played in the FA Cup, I'd keep the article. Kivo (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kivo: First, FOOTYN does not 'accept' anything as notable, it isn't a Subject Specific Notability Guideline (SNG). Second, even SNGs such as WP:NSPORT do not 'accept' topics as notable, they create a presumption of notability, which may be overruled if challenged and no evidence can be found of the topic meeting the requirements of the WP:GNG. Furthermore the only SNG that mentions teams is WP:NTEAM which states that teams must meet the GNG. I invite you to discuss sources and the topic's meeting or not meeting the GNG instead (as very few keep !voters have in this discussion). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't WP:NTEAM cover sports teams (instead you are directed straight to GNG), but it does cover athletes who have competed in the Olympic Games? There will be some individual Olympians who have swum 50m and been eliminated, and they will be 'presumed notable' - but not football clubs (with decades of history) that have played in the FA Cup? Just an observation. Anyway, the Cray Valley PM article seems well sourced (from numerous separate sources too). Also, do sources have to be online to meet GNG? With over a century of history, the club will have had lots of media coverage that is simply unavailable to us. Kivo (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kivo:Nearly all of the sources in the article either fail to represent significant coverage, or are not independent, or cannot be confirmed to be a reliable source. That's the issue here (see discussion above). Sources are not required to be online, but we can't assume that they exist just because the topic is old. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would represent 'significant' coverage? We'd have to discount anything that wasn't online (you couldn't cite a TV documentary for example, as my village team was lucky enough to feature in last year), in which case significant would suggest national coverage? Regional? There's plenty of regional sources cited already. Nationwide would be very difficult for a lot of clubs below Step 1. Kivo (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason we would have to discount anything not online. Offline sources are definitely acceptable as RS. Is there a TV documentary about the team? If it was produced and aired by ITV or BBC I would say it's likely RS and it would change my thinking (and likely my !vote). But I don't think we're aware of any such sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kivo: Look at WP:SIGCOV, which gives the rule - there are a number of sources linked above as well (I think they do significantly cover the topic.) Also, to answer your previous question, the reason for the difference is organizations are different from people: we are very careful with biographical articles, especially ones of people who are alive. SportingFlyer talk 22:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Number57, GiantSnowman and prior AFD consensus. Drawoh46 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The notion by those seeking to delete the article seems to come from the idea that a small team in the lower reaches of the English football pyramid isn't notable because either a) teams at a similar level in other nation's leagues are not present on the wiki or b) there are a lack of independent sources. To counter both arguements, firstly, the English pyramid system is noted for its depth and organisation compared to other countries. The league system is much more structured and professionalised at the tenth level than pretty much every other nation in which football is played professionally. The clubs at the 10th tier of English football are mainly semi-professional. Additionally, if the argument is made that this team should be deleted, then at what level do we cut teams out? Are National League teams not notable because they don't play in the Football League? Are 7th tier teams not notable because they don't play in nationwide leagues? To me, those would seem arbitrary as cut offs. Additionally, the 10th tier is known as being a cut off point between the amateur lower levels and the semi-professional game, with some rules being present in level 10 (such as requiring clubs to sell tickets to games) that are not present at level 11, along with teams below level 10 not usually being allowed to compete in the FA Cup. Secondly, sources are to provide back up for facts, not to contest that something exists. If a page is noteworthy but does not have a lot of sources, that is not inherently a reason to delete the page. Yes, good sources should always be desired, however they are not essential for an article. And besides, Cray Valley's performance and entry into leagues should be well documented by the FA and the relevant league's website, which are credible sources. To me, this debate seems to be made by a bunch of people who don't really understand the structure of English football and are trying to establish a precedent to delete a bunch of articles just because they don't feel like they should exist. These teams are noteworthy, and should be kept. BarnabyJoe (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I'm going against the grain here, but I cannot support anything but deletion, mostly because I am extremely reluctant to make decisions on inclusion based on unwritten consensus. If there truly is consensus for a certain threshold, then it should be codified; if it isn't codified, we shouldn't apply it. Arguing along the lines of "I know it's not in the rules, but this is how it's done here" sounds dangerously like an old-boys club. The only applicable codified threshold I can see is WP:GNG, and I cannot see this club meeting that threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in many of these AfDs the result was delete – because they had not played at level 10 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. The purpose was to illustrate the existence of consensus that this is the cut-off point for club notability (and it's probably used more often to delete clubs that don't meet this requirement). And as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."; all clubs at this level in the English pyramid have articles, so deleting this one would create inconsistency. Number 57 07:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR? OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that "Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars." However, WP:5P2 writes that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". The guideline WP:WHYN further states: We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. Unfortunately, significant coverage in independent sources has not been identified. I haven't seen a strong rationale presented to apply WP:IAR here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter anyways, as the club passes WP:GNG (there's at least agreement it's borderline) - and even assuming it doesn't, there are no NPOV issues in the article, nor is it written like an advertisement. SportingFlyer talk 03:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we are writing about topics for which independent sources don't give the time of day, it is still promotional, even if the content does not "sound" glaringly like an over-the-top advertisement.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. If it's not written like a promotion, it's not promotional. That's literally the definition of promotional. Smartyllama (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would say English football club articles had digged too deep into amateur league, which the consideration should be more on WP:GNG (or non-routine coverage on secondary source) when start to counting over 5 level below top level. It may be a good project for football dedicated encyclopedia, but in wikipedia it seem not that necessary. Keep only if non-routine source or even book (non-primary source one) about the club were digged out and insert to the article. Matthew_hk tc 03:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GNG requires that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This club gets significant coverage in a number of independent sources, which includes in-depth match previews (1, 2) and match reports (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in local media, rival club sites and various other football sites. There is a historical account of the club on the offical league website and accounts of their ground appear in a number of online stadium guides. The only question is how reliable these sources are. If it was one online source, this might be an issue, but there are many independent sources, including reputable local media and offical organisations. It passes the criteria in WP:GNG.   Jts1882 | talk  07:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not independent Aside from kentishfootball.co.uk, which was already discussed earlier, the other sites you listed do no seem independent. Pitchero.com is a promotional platform to support clubs, and does not seem independent: "United on one unique platform Pitchero provides each club, league or county organisations with the tools they need to create a website, manage their membership and collect payments online"[29] Cray-wanderers.com, ashfordunitedfc.com, and balhamfc.com are sites of football clubs writing about opponent Cray Valley Paper Mills. As they would be expected to write about any opponent of theirs', it is not independent nor presumed to be discriminate. Brixtonbuzz.com is a website with local entertainment listings. The link you listed is really just a collection of photos, a blurb from team website, and ticket purchase info. Doesn't seem significant enough to help expand on Wikipedia content. Londonfa.com also seems affiliated, being a "governing body of football in London. We aim to grow participation, promote diversity, safeguard the game for everyone to enjoy, and to retain and develop the workforce."[30] Finally, talesfromthepigeonstands.wordpress.com, with no dedicated domain name, looks like an amateur blog. The site says that they "we will be visiting as many grounds as possible in order to provide the casual football fan with the information they need before making an educated decision as to how they plan to spend their Saturday afternoon as well as telling soe jolly tales from our expeditions."[31]—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As already stated, this club fits the notability criteria laid down many years ago under WP:FOOTYN due to the level at which it plays. Rillington (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was this relisted? Consensus was clearly to keep, we should have just closed this so we can stop wasting everyone's time. Smartyllama (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from last relist admin Despite the walls of text badgering every "delete" !vote here, in my opinion consensus is not as clear a you make it seem. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think his point is that few of the Keep !votes are grounded in policy or guideline-based reasons for keeping the article. The vast majority cite either the Wikiproject pseudo-SNG essay (not a guideline), or are "per Number 57", which is essentially an "other stuff" argument or an argument from 'outcomes'. Some of the Keep !votes have even stated that the GNG is irrelevent, despite WP:NTEAM being the relevant guideline advice. A few of the Keep !votes disagree about the article not meeting the GNG, which is totally fine, and the article won't close as 'delete'. But the article could easily be closed as 'no consensus' by an admin who decided to disregard !votes that have no footing in our notability guidelines. From what I can see: There appear to be precisely five editors in the above discussion arguing that the sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG (SportingFlyer, Smartyllama, Fenix down, Kivo, Jts1882) though only a couple of those editors discuss which sources they believe meet the GNG's requirements. Six editors have argued that the sourcing is insufficient for GNG (Dougal18(the nom), Myself, Barkeep49, Bagumba, Vanamonde93, Bring back Daz Sampson). Additionally, Multiple editors have 'Commented' in various ways that the keep !voters are off base (RobinCarmody, power~enwiki, Masem, Matthew_hk). Remember that AfD is not a head counting exercise, or majority vote, arguments for keeping or deleting an article must be rooted in policy, and then are weighted accordingly. Assessed this way, the above discussion more closely represents a 'no consensus' situation than 'keep'; I am pretty sure that this is why Randykitty relisted it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no SNG for football clubs. The only SNG that mentions them applies is WP:NTEAM, which specifically points to the GNG. I don't know how many times I have to say this before people stop treating FOOTYN as an SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kentishfootball.co.uk not reliable Barkeep49 called into doubt the reliabilty of this site above at 21:37, 14 August. This has been about the only site which has significant coverage, and both Insertcleverphrasehere and myself stated we were giving it's reliability the benefit of the doubt. However, this forum post, signed by the same person listed as the main contact at http://kentishfootball.co.uk, called it "as an expensive hobby, but now I have opened up a bank account to expand my “expensive hobby” into a business ... I attend at least two football matches in Kent every week, writing match reports, interviewing managers and bringing all the latest football news from the Garden of England." Without further evidence that independent sources consider him a subject matter expert, I would just consider this to be a personal blog, which are generally not reliable per guideline WP:UGC.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree - there's no reason to think this isn't a reliable source, as it's a writer able to write about the topic professionally who has been linked to by a number of local clubs. Furthermore you're discounting other sources with significant coverage like [32]. SportingFlyer talk 12:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's a business, written by a professional author. It's a reliable source. Furthermore, as SportingFlyer explained, you're ignoring coverage in numerous other reliable sources. We're not discussing the notability of the author, only of the team. Sports columnists rarely get coverage in independent, reliable sources. That makes them non-notable, but it doesn't make the subject of their coverage non-notable. That's a ridiculous assertion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Professionalism is not how we define a reliable source (see the many sources written by full time paid professionals deemed unreliable here). I do not feel comfortable with the information I know to say where on the reliability spectrum Kentishfootball is, but in general a single person operation is going to be less likely to be reliable given the lack of editorial controls. To be reliable this single person would have to be an expert acknowledged by reliable sources as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's also the Daily Mirror from 14 December 1967, Norwood News from 26 February 1954 and possible coverage from the Kentish Mercury. The british newspapers archive OCR isn't very good, so there's a number of possible hits - Norwood at least covered their results in the 1950's. SportingFlyer talk 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you SportingFlyer. Is the Norwood News from that era RS? I am unfamiliar with it and the Wikipedia article is about a different organization (unless a Bronx newspaper covered minor English football teams). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They appear to be a reliable paper dating back to at least 1868, but may have gone out of business sometime in the 1960s. See [33] for a random day's paper I found on Google. Is the Daily Mirror the one that's unreliable and garbage, or is that the Daily Mail? I always mix them up. Smartyllama (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also coverage of the club's games in the News Shopper.[34][35] Number 57 14:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacking multiple sources GNG states that "multiple sources are generally expected", where a source is from a different publisher. The guideline WP:WHYN says: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." In my opinion, a few local newspaper sources active in any given area is not enough sources to meet GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the Daily Mirror was a national source. I could be wrong, though, I don't know British papers that well. Smartyllama (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartyllama: It is, you are quite correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People are using the WP:GNG argument for deleting this article. However the article sites numbers different sources, including two national football publications, as well as several other sources which are independent and not related to the club. When combined, these sources fit all of the General notability guidelines as set out on the GNG page. Rillington (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see a number of !votes pointing to the existence of match recaps and the like as coverage. We generally discount routine sourcing like that (otherwise, we'd argue that every individual assn. football match, gridiron football game, baseball game, etc. could be GNG-notable). End of season summaries may be better as long as they are transformative (secondary), not just repeating how the club did but analyzing that further. --Masem (t) 17:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that match reports are routine coverage as far as notability of the players or matches; however, the fact that a club regularly has its games covered would indicate a level of notability. Generally there are two levels of coverage of football in newspapers – match reports for individual clubs and roundups for leagues. The former would indicate a level of notability for the club and the latter for the league. Number 57 19:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Number 57: What you're talking about is match coverage - either detailed coverage of a specific game or league round-ups, but whichever type of coverage is going to fall into that routine category. I think Masem is rightly noting the lack of more big picture coverage that would suggest a notable team - an indication that it's not just a match here and there of some interest but the team as a subject of coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've read that essay before (thanks SportingFlyer for bringing it to my attention) but I've certainly referenced its ideas before although not in sports. However we're not looking at week-in week-out coverage of their matches (unless I'm mistaken about the evidence). It's more like once or twice a season (or so), correct for a team that plays 30-40 matches a season? If so that doesn't fit my idea of continuous but could understand others who disagree. And I can find numerous American High School football teams who not only outdraw Cray Valley but have far more coverage every week (plus season previews/reviews). It feels like if this 100+ year old team were notable this whole discussion wouldn't be so hard but we're looking at an organization far down the pyramid and while they certainly exist Wiki's chosen a higher bar for inclusion that I'm just having trouble seeing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The U.S. high school argument is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison, as those teams can get five-figure crowds, and is a completely different notability standard than what we're looking at here. As I've stated, I think they meet the goal for inclusion. WP:GNG isn't a high a bar. As shown, they receive consistent local coverage for the competitions they play in, especially for the competitions they've gone on to win. The conversation's difficult because the club are right on the edge of where the teams in the pyramid are notable, and because they do receive coverage. (They've also just qualified for the FA Cup first qualifying round, one of the last 276 clubs in the competition - it's completely conceivable the top 300+ football teams in the country that invented football are notable.) SportingFlyer talk 04:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer:You're right the HS argument was OTHERSTUFF and so I've now struck it. You're also right that it wouldn't be surprising if there were 300 notable English football club. I wouldn't be surprised if we actually already have that many articles. But that doesn't mean Cray Valley (bless their Paper Mill producing hearsts) are notabile. I will repeat that this is a club that has had a substantial chance of the time since England invented the sport to gain coverage (and thus notability). It feels like going back as far as we can what we find is the once or twice a season match coverage that doesn't suggest they're actually notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree this time. I think that the discussion as pretty much come to a logical close. Ignoring !votes contrary to policy, there is clearly no consensus as to whether the team passes GNG or not, it depends on how strict each editor wants to be about it, and how they assess the reliability of the very few sources that we do have, and also whether this sporadic match coverage even contributes to notability of the team (I and others don't think it does, but others disagree). I doubt that another week of discussion is going to change anyone's mind. If someone were to manage to get into a library and verify whether any of the applicable books/sources listed HERE contain significant coverage of the team, that could go a long way to settling the notability or lack thereof for this team. Until that happens, consensus will likely be split over whether the team meets the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had typed out a similar message and deleted it out of respect for traditionalprocess but I would agree that the community has weighed in at length on this topic. Kirbanzo are you willing to reconsider your relist and/or be an experienced editor in judging consensus and make a close (as I presume it will not be delete). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kirbanzo !voting instead would be of more value. Per the guideline WP:NACD re: an actual close, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above comments. SportingFlyer talk 01:26, 28 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cray_Valley_Paper_Mills_F.C.&oldid=954532989"