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. Nakon 02:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Town F.C.[edit]

Scarborough Town 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)

Non-notable - never played in an FA competition Kivo (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one of the successors to the collapsed Scarborough F.C. There are obviously better alternatives to deletion such as merger with that club or the main article on the town. Note that the AFD was not set up correctly, as noted above. I have fixed the template on the article but am not sure what else might still be wrong. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:FOOTYN has never played in a national competition. No other achievements noted that have garnered sufficient, significant, reliable and non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Not sure I agree with merging, which would give significantly undue emphasis to this club in the original Scarborough article. Maybe a short paragraph at best as this was a short lived phoenix club. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fenix down, never played at a sufficiently high enough level or received sufficient coverage. GiantSnowman 13:57, 14 February 2015 (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.