Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurmaston Town F.C.

Thurmaston Town F.C.

Thurmaston Town F.C. (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)

Disputed prod, procedual nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as they have only played below the generally accepted cut-off point for English teams (Step 10), as confirmed by the FCHD. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Isn't the Leicestershire Senior League Premier, where they currently play, at Step 7?--Michig (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed. But the WP:FOOTY rule-of-thumb cut-off-point is Step 6 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per precedents for notability.--Michig (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Neutral until we have an agreed cut-off point for notability (step 6? step 7? step 10?) - the football project should really get to grips with this. Totally unsourced articles such as this should at least meet some agreed notability criterion if they're going to stay.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, the football project has "got to grips with this" and Step 6 was the decision. Nobody in this AfD appears to be claiming that Step 7 is notable, and Bettia's reference to Step 10 is an error, based on the fact that Step 6 is the 10th level of the overall English football system (you've got the four fully professional levels, then Step 1, then Step 2, and so on) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, it does not appear to be documented anywhere, and it seems clear that there are differeing interpretations of notability in these discussions.--Michig (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree, I don't think we need to set in stone a rule like Step 6=notable, Step 7=non-notable. Take each case on its own merits, and keep those with the multiple, independent, non-trivial reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - the Leicestershire Senior League was a de facto Step 6 type league from 1999 to about 2004, when all three Midland Alliance feeders were dropped to Step 7 (The WMRL and Mid Comb since regained official Step 6 status while the LSL didn't). I don't necessarily agree with the fact that "Step 6 = notable" and "Step 7 = non-notable" by default, let alone the fact that a single FA Vase appearance gives notability, but if that is the consensus we are working with, Thurmaston Town pass. - fchd (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Richard Rundle. matt91486 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The argument that the LSL Premier was "de facto" Step 6 is weak and flawed! The KCL and Essex Olympian League are still "de facto" step 6 but that hasnt't stopped any of their member clubs (who havent played at "proper" step 6 before on in the FAC or FAV) having their articles deleted. Sarumio (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per FCHD. GiantSnowman 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep no consensus has been reached on the cut off level Skitzo (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)