Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgwater & Albion

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgwater & Albion

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

Not a notable team. Amateur only. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Rod ^talk 11:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amateur only is not a valid reason for deletion, if we used that same standard then Queen's Park F.C. and Wimbledon RFC should be deleted too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response OK I copied that from Southern Lions Rugby Union Football Club but having looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability I wasn't clear what was considered notable (hence the note Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Bridgwater & Albion). If I withdraw the comment re "Amateur only" I still worry that I can't find any RS to show its notability.— Rod ^talk 11:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This club traces it's roots back to 1875, and according to it's website [1] has had at least one England representative play Test rugby while with the club. The league system in England wasn't formed until 1987, so just because the club has never risen high within the league system doesn't mean it was not more highly regarded sometime in it's first 112 years. Is there any information on this? Someone with access to UK newspaper archives may know, I've found a few mentions: [2], [3]. There are no doubt others. My feeling is that this club is notable (even though no longer a strong side), but with older clubs like this it takes a bit more research to know for sure. -- Shudde ^talk 11:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This club has played in the national leagues so therefore it is notable enough for it to have its own article on wikipedia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Hamish59 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the club has some historical significance - its forerunner clubs date back to the 1870s and as pointed out above it has provided England internationals and British Lions, as shown on the club's website. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BCP67 -MacRùsgail (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2014 (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.