Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkshire Terriers F.C.

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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkshire Terriers F.C.

Yorkshire Terriers F.C. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This team does not play in the top 10 levels of the English football league system, as required by WP:CORP, in fact the league in which they play, the GFSN National League, is not part of the league system at all and never can be given that it accepts mixed teams and does not follow the standard laws of the game. The league itself is probably notable as part of LGBT culture, but the individual teams are not, IMO. Note that another club from the same league was deleted last year - ChrisTheDude 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It would be unfair and unreasonable to apply WP:CORP as quoted, inasmuch as it is the Football Association which chooses to discriminate against mixed teams. This would be akin to blaming the victim of bullying for being bullied. Nevertheless, I don't think the team is sufficiently notable yet. BTLizard 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Though it may not be right to apply WP:CORP to this one, it is entirely fair to apply the "subject of multiple non-trivial works" rule and this does not seem to pass that test at all. Qwghlm 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, I suggest you read the article gfsn, which all the teams are registered with. This article explains why a LGB league and LGB teams exist across the UK, and indeed the world. It's important to realise that such football clubs aren't just your average "Sunday League Football Club" - these clubs play an integral role in the LGB communities in which they serve. I think it's important that such organisations - which recieve notable press coverage in both local, national and gay publications - are recognised as such on wikipedia, and I believe it would be unfair to delete the article. However, the tone of the article does need changing, with more information about the reasons why they exist and the benefits they bring to the LGB communities in which they serve. Rangemean 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Another one was deleted a few days ago. I voted for Redirect but was out!voted. This is the last one left - the link to Stonewall FC in the GFSN National League just links to 'Stonewall'. GFSN National League is definitely notable, the teams less so. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V with no secondary sources. Bridgeplayer 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If this article was kept for the reasons given above then so should numerous other sunday league teams. And that is the sole basis upon which this should be judged. Therefore it is not notable.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment User:Tangerines, I completely disagree that a LGB mixed football team, competing in a national league (whether or not recognised by ANY organisation, such as the FA) isn't notable! This applies not just to this article, but for other articles that haven't been deleted. However, I do concede that this article does need more information to reflect this, and should be given the opportunity to do so. Rangemean 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• CommentFair enough we all have our different opinions. I should point out though it was not only me who said that the club are not notable. And my reasoning for it not being notable was based on different reasons. And on the basis of it being looked at on an equal footing as every other club, it is not notable. The League they play in has an article in which clubs are listed. And there are a number of Leagues in England who play at a similar level (or maybe slightly higher level) whose clubs do not meet notability requirements for wikipedia. And that, in my opinion, is how this should be judged.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I appreciate your point of view, and I understand that in context with other local teams, they may not appear notable. But as I mention above, the reasons they exist, their people who choose to play for them, and the things they do for local LGB communities - I believe, warrant some notibility. Rangemean 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst I can most definitely understand and agree that the league in which they play is notable and should be listed, from what was said previously another club from the same league had its article deleted recently. So on that basis why should this club be any different? Just a thought, but would there be any value maybe in having a section on the leagues article about all the clubs that play in the league, so that then all the clubs in the league get a mention rather than just one? The point about what the club do for local LGB communities is something that perhaps could be included in the leagues article? You are making it more difficult now for me to maintain my delete vote!! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is actually a very good idea; an article with a brief bio of each team from the league, linked into the main article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think maybe you're right and this should be implimented. The other article was deleted without this debate taking place. As most teams are broadly similar in terms of how they serve their local region, maybe inclusion in the main GFSN National League article (as a round-up) would be an acceptable comprimise? Rangemean 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• CommentFully agreed, which is why I mentioned it, as in my opinion whilst the clubs themselves do not meet notability requirements, I think that as a group of clubs, adding details of each club with the work they do for local LGC communities, to the main leagues article is something that would be as you say an acceptable compromise.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:50, 25 April 2007 (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.