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 merge to Stuart Roy Clarke. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Homes of Football[edit]

The Homes of Football (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)

Effectively has only primary sources, fails WP:GNG. Is tagged for PROMO but I think the whole article is promotional. Most the content is a duplicate of what is in Stuart Roy Clarke. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that. Appears the account The Homes of Football created THOF as an article and also created an article Stuart Roy Clarke with almost all the same content. There may also be a sock puppet problem, as Encyclopediadia and KatoKato exist only to make additions or subtractions to the THOF and SRC articles. And SRC is making changes to the article about himself. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an undisclosed COI as well, whoever closes this should probably check it out. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 11:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Purely WP:PROMO with no indication of significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (redirect to and merge parts that are missing) to (Stuart Roy Clarke) Clarke's article isn't that big, can move the mains parts into it. Did you people even read the article or review the sources? There is an article by The Independent newspaper, that is national coverage by a newspaper source. GiantSnowman, that counts towards notability! There is more on the web if you bother doing your research! No evidence of notability my ass. Govvy (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per Govvy. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are almost no independent refs listed for this photo project; fails notability. Could be a redirect, but look at what it would redirect to: the Stuart Roy Clarke ony has two refs. Both pages are materpieces of puffing up nothing into something. Delete both...96.127.242.251 (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do IPs really get to vote? It's like a sockpuppet vote. Govvy (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do. You unfortunately fail to assume good faith, and attack me for making a constuctive contribution to the dialogue. Have a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't even be allowed here with guest user access and that's what IPs are, if they bothered to fix that they you wouldn't be able to vote twice. By logic, due to your failure to cast a vote with a username indicates to me you have something to hide and I can't trust anything you say. There-for whoever those closer is should consider anything you say null and void to this discussion. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my particpation here. It's your attitude that is clearly the only un-Wikipedian thing goign on here. I'm placing a warning on your page for civility.96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 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.