Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester F.C. (2010)

Chester F.C. (2010)

Chester F.C. (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Amateur football club only formed this week, no evidence that the club passes the notability guidelines having never played in a league or any cup competition. In England, generally only football clubs who play at the tenth tier or higher are considered notable. -- BigDom 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The club's affiliation with Chester City F.C. gives them some notability, as does the newspaper references and the high-capacity stadium. It's extremely likely that they will go on to become far more notable, so why delete the article now only to recreate it later? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Normally I'd say delete. But, being formed from the ashes of the recently wound-up Chester City F.C., plus being reported in both the Chester Chronicle and the Guardian surely means that it meets Wp:GNG. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Chester City F.C.. This club has achieved no notability, never played a game and will possibly be lost in the annals of history. They are currently a one event wonder. This club has done nothing to become part of the enduring history of football. I don't believe a couple of articles in a paper make it pass general notability - that only shows that a journo was prepared to write about it - but they'll write about anything on a slow news day.--ClubOranje^T 10:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - We've had precedent set for this already, with the likes of F.C. Halifax Town, Scarborough Athletic F.C. and Gretna F.C. 2008, and Chester F.C. should occupy the same type of league placing as Scarborough Athletic at the very least. However, I can't help but think that creating an article for the new club now is slightly premature, considering that they're likely several months away from recruiting any staff or players (to say nothing of actually playing in a league). --DaveJB (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Although I'm sure this club will end up entering a league for next season, we know almost nothing about them at the minute, other than the club's name and that they will be allowed to play at the Deva Stadium. – PeeJay 01:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep for significant media coverage. I see no problem with using this page as a basis for expanding as they begin league play. matt91486 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - a successor club was always going to be formed, and there is significant coverage, and they can expect to join a league for next year, thus further increasing notability. Eldumpo (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep – per matt91486 and Eldumpo. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The club are hoping to be back in the non-league (lower) next season so no point deleting.Dashwortley (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Every player and club that comes up for deletion is hoping for something. There is every point for deleting - It is purely WP:CRYSTAL to speculate what may happen next season. No article should exist on WP unless it is encyclopaedically noteworthy per inclusion criteria. If and when the club actually becomes something, restoring the article can be done at the touch of a button--ClubOranje^T 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• This meets the GNG, having had significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. It's a very similar case to Gretna F.C. 2008. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)