The result was merge to London Irish. Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Amateur club. Fishead 2100 had nonadmin closed this unilaterally before within the first 24 hours, with the only other comment being from the article's creator.
There are no references other than a primary source, and it's a nonprofessional team. Cynof Gavuf 19:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep: Not again! We've been through this before. Just because it's an Amateur Club, that doesn't make it automatically not notible. If we went by your reasoning we should delete Queen's Park F.C. as well as this. Anyway the club is a branch of a Premiership club which goes with notibility.
The C of E. God Save The Queen! (
talk)
19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comment The page now has a few 3rd party sources so that art of the nomination I believe is WP:STALE. And as for the second part of it just being a non-professional team, then if this page is deleted because of that, afterwards you should delete Queen's Park F.C. and Harlequin Amateurs as they are non-proffesional teams and so (according to CynofGavuf's resoning) they must be deleted too. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
How about this source? [6]? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Although it is not relevant to a decision on whether or not to delete, I should like to say that the behaviour of Fishhead2100 in the previous AfD was appalling. The first time this editor non-admin closed the AfD doing so could not, in my view, be justified, but perhaps there is room for disagreement, as the nomination was not well done. However, the second time the same editor closed the AfD it was clearly unacceptable. By this time the defects in the nomination had been put right (statement had been added that there were no references etc). The correct thing to do was to invite better explanations as to why the article was nominated, not to repeatedly remove the nomination. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
OK, one last try. this source shows that it recieved a grant from Irish government which they must deem as notible as they are giving them money to be supported. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 10:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Just one thing I think I ought to mention to the closing admin. You should count the votes manually as the automatic AFD statistics are not recognising some of the votes cast here and so the article could be dealt with in a way that is not what consensus has been voted for. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to London Irish. Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Amateur club. Fishead 2100 had nonadmin closed this unilaterally before within the first 24 hours, with the only other comment being from the article's creator.
There are no references other than a primary source, and it's a nonprofessional team. Cynof Gavuf 19:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep: Not again! We've been through this before. Just because it's an Amateur Club, that doesn't make it automatically not notible. If we went by your reasoning we should delete Queen's Park F.C. as well as this. Anyway the club is a branch of a Premiership club which goes with notibility.
The C of E. God Save The Queen! (
talk)
19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comment The page now has a few 3rd party sources so that art of the nomination I believe is WP:STALE. And as for the second part of it just being a non-professional team, then if this page is deleted because of that, afterwards you should delete Queen's Park F.C. and Harlequin Amateurs as they are non-proffesional teams and so (according to CynofGavuf's resoning) they must be deleted too. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
How about this source? [6]? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Although it is not relevant to a decision on whether or not to delete, I should like to say that the behaviour of Fishhead2100 in the previous AfD was appalling. The first time this editor non-admin closed the AfD doing so could not, in my view, be justified, but perhaps there is room for disagreement, as the nomination was not well done. However, the second time the same editor closed the AfD it was clearly unacceptable. By this time the defects in the nomination had been put right (statement had been added that there were no references etc). The correct thing to do was to invite better explanations as to why the article was nominated, not to repeatedly remove the nomination. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
OK, one last try. this source shows that it recieved a grant from Irish government which they must deem as notible as they are giving them money to be supported. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 10:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Just one thing I think I ought to mention to the closing admin. You should count the votes manually as the automatic AFD statistics are not recognising some of the votes cast here and so the article could be dealt with in a way that is not what consensus has been voted for. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply