Talk:Whitehaven A.F.C.

Notability

Before you expend huge amounts of effort on the article, you should be aware that amateur sports teams are not usually sufficiently notable for an article. Before proceeding, you should be sure that you have sufficient sources to prove notability. Mayalld (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this but all the other teams in the Northern League (football) have articles associated with them. In the interests of consistency (and in recognition of football as the nation's number one sport) I would like to challenge this. What do you think? Neilho (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, also would like to clarify that I would be making the article consistent with other football club articles (I have just made a start today) :-) Neilho (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Which nation is that? (this is the English LANGUAGE Wikipedia, not the UK Wikipedia!)

If it goes to a deletion debate, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to use. If the article is to survive, it needs sources that proves notability, and it needs them fast. I've removed the PROD, and you have a bit of breathing space, but not a lot. Another editor could take it back to deletion at any time. Good luck, and remember, sources that prove notability are the key. WP:WAX isn't going to cut it. Mayalld (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've tagged it for a speedy delete as the article is virtually empty. Happy to remove the tag if some relevant info is displayed. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• The infobox is (just) enough to save it from speedy, and I've de-tagged. The author is acting in good faith here, and we can, I think cut him a little bit of slack. Lets see what the article looks like in 24 hours before killing it. Mayalld (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The PROD I added would have given the good-faith editor 5 days! The JPS^{talk to me} 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. By de-prodding, I've stopped the clock, and already bought him an extra hour. Personal challenge for tomorrow is to find enough to save this article. Mayalld (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, thanks for the slack. I'm on this article for the next hour so hopefully you will decide it can stay when you review it later. Neilho (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I've finished the article off. Looking forward to your notability decision. Neilho (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly don't think that the list of players is required and isn't there some coverage on a new ground? That should be included. One thing for sure, it's not a speedy! Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, firstly, it's a perfectly well written article, no complaints there. The issue it has is sources that prove notability. To show notability you need several independent reliable sources that talk mainly nabout the club. The source that I put in yesterday is a reliable source, it is independent of the club, and it talks mainly about the club. The other source is the club website. That isn't independent, and doesn't count, so the article has only one source that attests to notability. Like this, it is a sitting duck for deletion.

You need more sources. Newspaper reports would be good. Please note that none of the following count;

1. Blogs
2. Fansites
3. League tables
4. Business directories
5. Sites associated directly with the club.

Mayalld (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, you're assistance is really appreciated. I take all the above on board and will have a tweak in the next half an hour. Neilho (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see that Paste has already done the necessary and there are a few more sources so I'm hoping you'll be keeping the article live. Thanks again Neilho (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re to all the above: this is a level 10 club and as such should never have been tagged for deletion. There's no possibility it will be deleted; you can all safely continue working on it. – iridescent 16:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)