Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duntocher Hibernian F.C.: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:52, 10 February 2022

Duntocher Hibernian F.C.

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT - even fails the non-binding WP:FOOTBALL convention about playing in the national Cup, having never done so Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added a few refs which hopefully boost the case for WP:GNG pass. As well as playing in the Junior Cup final (covered in The Herald as per ref and probably elsewhere), the club won the Central Junior Football League twice in the 1950s so were among the top non-league clubs of that period. Yes they never played in the senior Scottish Cup, but that wasn't a possibility for any Junior clubs until the 21st century, instead it was a parallel 'little brother' organisation. The more recent refs I added were related to the ground - these confirm that the current team with the name is a very low-level amateur outfit, but there is still sufficient interest in a club that faded out 40 years ago to wish to restart it with the same name, and for the local newspaper to want to report on that. To call that SIGCOV would be pushing it, but COV certainly. I also linked to the Players category for the club which has 25 entries including a few internationals, so they had a decent record of producing professionals as well as bumbling along in the junior bubble. Would be a disappointing precedent for pre-Internet clubs if this were deleted, given their small but clear part in the history of Scottish football. Crowsus (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it was pre-internet doesn't mean it is not notable. I think coverage is sufficient enough, and as said above, the club itself was a clear part of Scottish football. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is pre-internet but it was a significant junior side back in the day.--Mvqr (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a club can not fail WP:NSPORT per WP:NTEAM. Geschichte (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *'''Keep''', it is pre-internet but it was a significant junior side back in the day.--[[User:Mvqr|<span style="color: #8f8;background:#85b;border:1px solid #999">Mvqr</span>]] ([[User talk:Mvqr#top|talk]]) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 *Comment: a club can not fail WP:NSPORT per [[WP:NTEAM]]. [[User:Geschichte|Geschichte]] ([[User talk:Geschichte|talk]]) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
+*<small>Note: This discussion has been included in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves|WikiProject Football]]'s list of association football-related deletions. [[User:Spiderone|<span style="color: #996600">Spiderone</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Spiderone|<span style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)</span>]]</sup> 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)</small>