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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palmers F.C.[edit]

Palmers F.C. (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)

Fails WP:N – Article about youtuber whose only claim to notability is "150,000 subscribers" (which is certainly not notable). Has not played in any league except against other youtube teams. 80% of the sources link to youtube or Facebook. The only good source is a BBC article which mentions this "team" vaguely in passing. Laurdecl ^talk 09:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is an actual semi pro team that has reached the top division for amateurs as mentioned in the article (Thurrock Association Sunday League Division One) and can now apply for the proper F.A pyramid, yes they are known for filming their matches, but I don't understand how the nom says that they only play youtube teams, they have only played 1 to my knowledge, Hashtag United F.C. as mentioned in the article. They just fail WP:NFOOTY but are probably the best known 'Sunday League' team in the country, so pass WP:GNG per these sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you said, amateur teams are not notable per WP:NFOOTY and the youtube subscribers claim does not confer notability. The entire History section is about amateur leagues and """references""" used there are youtube links. If this team was notable then the record of their games would be in independent sources, not on youtube videos they have uploaded themselves. Laurdecl ^talk 07:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Understandably, the notability rules on English football teams require that a team has at least at some point played in top ten divisions of the pyramid or in the FA Cup. However, despite Palmers FC not having done so they are by far a much more well renowned team than many at the lower reaches of the English football league system, despite being a Sunday league outfit. 150,000 subscribers on Smiv's Youtube channel is surely notable enough to justify a page for the club alone, with these thousands regularly following the side's results and matches. If they cannot be classed as notable enough based on footballing terms they should at least be considered notable enough under overall Wikipedia requirements for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.123.211 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this RfC on YouTuber notability. Youtubers with more than 4 million subscribers have had their pages deleted for lack of notability. I don't like this policy but it seems unfair to let this page exist. Laurdecl ^talk 23:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – this article was originally declined at AfC, see User:Swizler73/sandbox Laurdecl ^talk 07:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator – this article has been deleted four times and salted under the name Palmers FC. Laurdecl ^talk 08:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out the BBC source is more substantual than claimed, just going to give it here;

• Delete Clearly not notable and the article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Number 57 09:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Some minor coverage riding on the back of Hashtag United. Most references are just YouTube. Fenix down (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The team is famous for reasons beyond football. My vote is that the team meets general notability at this point.Demitrius39 (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a ballot, this is a discussion to determine consensus. A side mention in one BBC article is not enough to establish notability. Laurdecl ^talk 05:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laurdecl You mad cause of how I voted? "this isn't a ballot" LOL people are voting in order to establish consensus, and I voted so get over it.Demitrius39 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Demitrius39: It's been shown above that this article fails to meet WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Consensus isn't established by saying "I vote for x" but by giving reasons for your viewpoint (see WP:POLL). "LOL". Laurdecl ^talk 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most of the links provided by Alessandro are unreliable blogs; most of the 'references' in the article are YouTube, Twitter and Facebook all of which are unreliable Spiderone 09:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obviously fails WP:NFOOTY and fails WP:GNG too. AlessandroTiandelli333 has provided lots of links, but I don't see any reliable sources among them -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 16 January 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.