Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:47, 24 June 2010

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to American football. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|American football|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to American football. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football/archive

Purge page cache

watch

American football

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Stroupe

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

Notability is questionable, no sources Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if sources for the information given were found, the subject still would not meet notability standards. If there's more information and more notability, it needs to be edited into the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no news sources found ([1]), non-notable career. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Who? --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:44, 28 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solent Redhawks

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

Non notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable even on their own campus. This team does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. A quick google returns only results in some way related to the team or its rivals. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's rare for British university sports teams to meet WP:GNG, and this does not appear to be one of those few exceptions. Pfainuk talk 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I've said before, sports teams are rarely known within their university (I've got a friend that's part of her uni's hockey team, and they're not widly known there), and this is not an exception. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I normally don't like bulk deletions and prefer a non-rapid approach to allow discussion at AfDs, these articles seem to be deleted with little to no opposition and I think we can pick up the pace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Weinke

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

Questionable notability, article was created by User:Fjwinks, who is likely the subject of this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:ATH and more specifically WP:NSPORTS for American/Canadian football players, as he has never competed in a major professional league. I tried to find independent information to verify the claims in the article, but other than two af2 press releases[2][3], I was unsuccessful. Movementarian (Talk) 08:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable professional and college career. Being the cousin of Chris Weinke does not justify notability either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Echo the above two. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant coaches are normally not notable per WP:CFBCOACH (essay, not policy), and there does not appear to be any other assertion to notability outside of the non-notable lower-level professional football play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hawkins (coach)

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

Don't think Chris Hawkins (coach) meets notability guidelines. He's a high school coach and media coverage on him seems to be only local. Coaching one player who later made it to the NFL, Charlie Frye, isn't enough to establish notability alone. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school coaches are normally not considered notable. Espeically those who don't have any sources in their articles...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Movementarian (Talk) 08:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2010 (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.

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. NW (Talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Dawson

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

Not sure if Shannon Dawson meets notability requirements. Also, the article as it stands is in very bad shape. It is poorly formatted, not properly categorized, lacks any citations, and much of its content seems to have been copied and pasted from http://sfajacks.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/dawson_shannon00.html or similar web page. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have removed the copyrighted text from the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assistant coaches at the college level are normally not considered notable. The subject can reach notability through other means, but I don't see any assertion other than assistant coaching.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree on all points with Paul McDonald. Obamafan70 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ATHLETE for both a coach and player (he played for Division II Wingate University and did not play professionally). -Drdisque (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not pass WP:ATHLETE as a coach or college player, and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that would indicate notability per WP:BIO. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:13, 28 June 2010 (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.

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Barracuda

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

Non-notable British University American Football team. Sports teams at British University are rarely notable on their own campus never mind in the rest of the world. This team does not appear to one of the mere handful of exceptions to this rule. A google for the team returns nothing beyond sites related directly to the team and its rivals. Article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of independent and reliable sources it seems unlikely that it will be possible to reference the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indpendent sources, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This does not appear to be one of those few British university sports teams that actually meet our notability criteria. Pfainuk talk 06:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 28 June 2010 (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.

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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Cobras

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

Non notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable within their own institution never mind in the wider world. This does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions to this rule. A search on Google returns little beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. The only coverage I could find was this BBC page. The page is a local page for South-East Wales and does nothing beyond acknowledged the teams existence. It's also worth noting that it isn't updated anymore.

Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent and reliable sources, I dont see anyway that it could be referenced. Given that the article hasn't had any non-trivial edits since its creation almost 5 years ago, it doesn't look likely that anyone will step forward to reference it, even if there were sources. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This does not appear to be one of the few British university sports teams that meet WP:GNG. Pfainuk talk 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indpendent sources, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Bullets

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

Non notable British University sports team. Unlike in some other countries, British University sports teams are rarely of note even within their own institution. There are only a very small number of exceptions to this rule, largely confined to mainstream British sports such as rowing, soccer, cricket and rugby. This American Football (very much a niche interest sport in the UK) team does not appear to be one of those exceptions. A google search turns up nothing beyond sites directly related to the team and its rivals. For those unsure of the notability of British University sports teams, you might like to check the teams Flickr feed and check the typical number of spectators such games get.

A second issue is that the article is unreferenced. However, given the lack of independent or reliable sources on the subject, I don't see any prospect of being able to reference the article. Furthermore, given the article has had nothing other than trivial (e.g. updating stats, typos, categories, etc.) since its initial creation in 2005, it doesn't seem likely that anyone is going to step forward to do this work. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. There's simply too little coverage to write a decent article on this subject. Claritas § 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Fails WP:GNG: this does not appear to be one of the rare notable British university sports teams. Pfainuk talk 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's rare for a sports team to be well known within a University, never mind away from it. There's also no references and, judging by the lack of hits away from them or rivals, anything to grant them notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be good in a local or perhaps UK sports almanac though...--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2010 (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.

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. Shimeru 07:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCH Sharks

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

Non-notable British University American Football team. British university sports teams are rarely of note within their own institution, never mind in the wider world. The handful of exceptions are confined to more popular sports such as rowing, soccer, cricket and rugby (American Football is of niche interest in the UK). A quick Google returns nothing beyond sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent and reliable sources there is little prospect of being able to reference the material.

As this team draws its membership from a number of colleges I do not see any obvious article to merge its content to. This of course ignores the issue that a merge simply shifts the issue of verifiability to another article

The previous nomination almost two years ago appears to have failed largely as it was a batch nomination of all British University American Football teams. The whole batch was failed on points about individual teams (such as at the time two teams called Glasgow Tigers shared the same article). Since that nomination, little has changed at this article and around half (21) of the articles in the original (41) nomination have been deleted at individual Afds. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it stands, unreferenced and without indicating notability, seems like a delete to me. I can't find any reliable sources for it. As it stands, delete DRosin (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to grant this team notability, so it seems to be a non-notable team about a niche sport in Britain. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's very rare for a British university sports team to meet WP:GNG, and this team does not appear to be one of the few exceptions to that rule. Pfainuk talk 09:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly. Not notable for our standards here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep University American Football in the UK does not have the same coverage as University American Football in the US, but to say this team is non notable is false. The University of Hull Sharks invented the league in 1985, and the history of the league and the UCH Sharks can be found at www.buafl.net. The original history can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Collegiate_American_Football_League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJayBWFC (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC) — JayJayBWFC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: British Collegiate American Football League is itself an unreferenced article, covering a subject of dubious notability (little mention outside websites of teams that competed in the league). I could invent the North West England Quidditch League, that doesn't automatically make me or the league notable. What would make it notable is significant independent coverage from reliable sources (for example, but not limited to coverage in the press or media, books about the subject, published papers about the subject) - something which UCH Sharks and BCAFL lack. At the same time, buafl.net hardly constitutes an independent source. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Sabres (American football)

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

Non-notable university American Football team. University sports teams in the UK are rarely notable within their own institution, never mind further afield. This team, which participates in what is a niche interest sport in the UK, does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions to the rule. A quick search on google returns little beyond sites directly related to the team and its rivals. The article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of sources that are reliable and independent it is unlikely that the article could be referenced. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG: like all the other British university American football teams that have been nominated and deleted recently, this team does not appear to be one of those rare exceptions to the general rule that British university sports teams are not notable. Pfainuk talk 21:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's very rare for a Uni sports team in Britain to be known *within* their campus, never mind off it. This isn't one of them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Also falls foul of WP:PUFF and WP:COI. Eliteimp (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, as are 99.9% of UK university sports teams. Nuttah (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources given--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2010 (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.

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. Several call of merge, but point made that there is little mergable information. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Celtics

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

Not notable. British University sports teams aren't generally notable. In most cases they have next to zero following even within their own institution. This team does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. A search on Google returns only sites directly to the team and its rivals. Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent sources, there is little prospect that it could be referenced. Equally, the fact that in the almost 5 years since its creation the article has had nothing more than a handful of non-trivial edits (There are about 2 which add "real" content, none of which have been in the last 3 years), indicates it is unlikely it ever will Pit-yacker (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a rare British University sports team that is notable even in majority sports - let alone teams that play minority sports such as American Football. This team does not seem to be one of those few exceptions to this rule. Pfainuk talk 18:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. per Pfainuk. per there are no notable third party citations to bolster notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In most cases, University sports teams aren't known in their own campus, never mind off it. I am unable to find anything that this team - in what is a minority sport in the United Kingdom - is any different. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Leeds#Leeds University Sport. A summary could be added to the university article. Cjc13 (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much that's merge-able. Right now this team, along with most other sports teams in the same situation, doesn't get a mention at all, so anything more than a link to the words "American football" as an example of a sport played at Leeds would seem to be undue coverage. Pfainuk talk 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Problem with a merge is that it merely shifts the problem of the inability to verify the topic to the University of Leeds article. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the merger of the info in the first paragraph and leaving a redirect. There are websites BUAFL and Leeds Celtic which support the info. Cjc13 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article, Leeds University has either thirty-six or sixty different sports clubs. Whichever, most of those sports aren't even mentioned in the Leeds University article. Certainly, none of them gets a paragraph to itself. I see little reason to assume that American football is a special case. So, putting anything more than the words "American football" in that article would seem to give undue weight to the American football team.

Incidentally, the 36-60 discrepancy seems to come about because Leeds University Students Union have a bizarrely restrictive definition of a "sports club" - excluding, for example, martial arts and most watersports clubs. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Leeds#Athletics as non-notable and badly in need of merging, if possible. T3h 1337 b0y 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, as are 99.9% of UK university sports teams. Nuttah (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Nuttah Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (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.

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Currently vacant

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCH Sharks (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield Sabres (American football)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln Colonials}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeds Celtics}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond Tardy}}
 ==[[WP:PROD|Proposed deletions]]==

Revision as of 00:47, 24 June 2010

American football

Categories