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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Central Girls Football Academy[edit]

Central Girls Football Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Youth team without sufficient showing of notability. Result of now indef blocked user's promotion of the team, and supported by a network of his sockpuppets, all indef blocked as well. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in light of the national cup games. (!vote updated 06:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)) So the team did qualify for the second tier of Scottish Womens' Football next season, [1], [2] and has gotten some coverage for some national youth championships in the UK. [3] I'm not sure if this will be enough to justify an article, but many other clubs in the Tier 3 league they were in seem to have articles, and most in the new Tier 1/2 system adopted in 2016 seem to have articles. So for now, I would at least oppose deletion in favour of draftifying the article until the new season. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep – Despite the name, the academy doesn't just operate in youth football, they have an adult first team that has just been promoted to the second tier of the Scottish Women's Premier League and also participates in the Scottish Women's Cup, which gives a presumption of notability under WikiProject Football guidelines (WP:FOOTYN). I believe the additional material and citations added to the article since the deletion nomination demonstrate its notability much clearer than was previously the case. Jellyman (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I was just about to vote delete because I don't think the refs are sufficient, however I will hang on because I'd be interested to know what nfooty says about the second tier of scottish womens premier league, why did you presume notability? Szzuk (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The project considers clubs who have played in the national cup competition and / or national leagues to be notable. This applies to women's football just as much as men's. Jellyman (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the spirit of fairness and neutrality, I have to advise that I identified a new user WP:CANVASSing selected editors' talk pages. Of the three targeted, one has determinedly posted above. As required by WP:BITE, I politely messaged the new user's Talk page, which was blanked within 10 minutes. I left it a few hours, but a suspicious IP deletion of the new user's !vote has occurred on another AfD I have !Voted on. Considering the socking history of this article, possible CU needed here, El Cid.-Semperito (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draft agree with Patar knight (talk · contribs). Can someone clarify why this user was indefinitely blocked? Hmlarson (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sockpuppetry, as pointed out by nominator (they have been editing from at least eight different accounts. One of those was the one that canvassed you). Number 57 12:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They've played in the national cup so pass WP:FOOTYN. Number 57 12:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment Another point-of-order, the main character promoted in the lead - Ian Dibdin - is a Director of "Central Football Academy Limited", and the club website shows his other company "Happy Feet" as sponsor, for those of you who may wish to consider if WP is being used to promote a commercial venture(?).-Semperito (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as Happy Feet aren't mentioned in the article, I don't believe this is the case. Number 57 15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant that the Central Girls Football Academy should be evaluated as potentially a commercial organisation, particularly where those who have written the article are directly connected, instead of unconnected neutral editors without CoI/POV.-Semperito (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many commercial organisations have articles, nothing wrong with that. I agree that having advertising-oriented content is bad, but I don't think this article contains anything like that. Jellyman (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Many commercial organisations have articles", yes, theoretically written by non-involved neutral editors using reliable sources, not repeated socks producing CoI content. The likelihood here considering the past is that it will continue with cruft.-Semperito (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely the decision to keep or delete the article can only be based on whether we decide if the topic is notable or not? Would you seriously advocate deleting articles on notable subjects as a solution to questionable editing practices? Jellyman (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has played in a nation so competition, passes WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above passes WP:FOOTYN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - played at a sufficient level (National cup). GiantSnowman 11:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (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.