Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blunsdon United

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blunsdon United[edit]

This article is about a football team. "The highest attendance in the club history is 39" says it all. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. David Johnson 23:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - agreed, it argues for its own un-notability. But it's too bad, because it's pretty well-written, really. Cdc 23:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I started a discussion on Wikipedia:Fancruft a while ago, and asked "what is fancruft?" Now I know. This is fancruft. And I only mean that in a positive way; I love it to pieces. "The football team does not have a permanent ground therefore the team has to play in a open field behind Ermin Street. Unfortuantly the field is part own by the local farmer and during the summer months, the fields are used for training horses." Note that the team is real; it's not a hoax. This article is a well-meaning contribution from a fan.
    I'm not going to vote. Instead, I trimmed the article down considerably, eliminating all POV gushing and unmemorable quotes (which don't belong in Wikipedia anyway). The remainder is short but not a stub. I'm sure you're still all going to vote Delete on grounds of non-notability. So be it. I think I've done my duty, and no doubt you'll do yours. JRM 00:04, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, and there's no need to resort to "not notable", since it's a vanity page. Shane King 00:18, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
    Luckily that judgement is quite subjective, so I can disagree in this particular case. It may have been a vanity page, but I fail to see how it can be considered one now, except maybe for points #1 ("not well-known enough for there to be multiple contributors"—but if a page is not about the contributor or his/her pet project and was still interesting enough for him or her to create, how are you ever going to extrapolate that there will never be more?) and #4 ("Vanity pages almost always lack interesting content"), well, that's off into the realm of what's interesting, and if we're going to walk down that road on VfD... Still, I respect your opinion, of course. JRM 01:00, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  • Keep this charming fancruft. Esthetics count for something. Wyss 00:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A private passion. Not encyclopedic. Geogre 00:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. However cute, its lack of reach makes it a vanity page. Katefan0 01:09, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
    It's back to the drawing board for me. Now I definitely have to lock myself up in the meditation room again and wrap my head around Wikipedia:Vanity. Oh, VfD, when will I ever learn? :-) JRM 01:38, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Ok JRM, let's have a shufti at the wiki vanity criteria...

...if ...doomed eternally to be a one-editor page, it ought to be yanked. It's already gotten past that.

...vanity pages are usually highly POV and non-encyclopedic It's not PoV now.

...usually poorly written... Nope, it reads real slick ;)

...almost always lack interesting content... I think it's interesting, at least.

...written by people unfamiliar with Wikipedia... ok, ok... at first it was true.

...rarely perform a function that cannot be achieved with a user page... Ah yes, the user page, wiki love for vain non-notables everywhere :) Wyss 02:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clearly Blunsdon United is not ephemeral: it will shortly be celebrating its half-century. A charming article; it's just a pity that retaining it in its current form (note the shortage of working links) could well encourage the vain to attempt to leaven deadly pages about non-notable psychics, campus personalities, etc. etc. with whimsy and jocosity. Now, if only there were suitable articles on Blunsdon (and no, I haven't overlooked Broad Blunsdon) and the Swindon League I'd know which way I'd vote. -- Hoary 09:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) ..... PS those articles still need doing, but even in the meantime this article is a keeper. -- Hoary 09:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) PPS I've changed my mind. Merge with Blunsdon. -- Hoary 05:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, this is Broad Blunsdon's and Blunsdon St Andrew's football team, so since there aren't articles on the Swindon League, and the record attendance is 39, there isn't an article on Blunsdon St Andrew and the Broad Blunsdon article is rather short, I'll vote merge. The team's been around for 50 years, which is more than bloody Digimon will manage, I'm sure. Average Earthman 14:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - personally i found this article about Blunsdon United quite intresting and well written.--KeithV 21:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Constituting this user's one and only edit to wikipedia so far. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for various reasons already mentioned; possibly merge to the league it comes from if that gets an article Kappa 22:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Improv 22:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not harming anyone, it doesn't duplicate material elsewhere, and it's exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia can do so much better than any paper encyclopaedias. P Ingerson 23:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 00:08, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since its nomination, there have been enough contributions to it that I can now, in good faith, vote to keep it without looking like I'm just glorifying my own efforts or pushing some sort of inclusionist agenda on articles I've scarcely looked at (my initial reasons for abstention). Screw inclusionism and deletionism. I want this article to exist on its own merits. I want "precedent" to shut the hell up while actual articles are still talking. If you want to trim it or merge it with something else because you can't bear to see it occupy its own title, great, we can still talk about that, build consensus, be Wikipedians. But don't delete it. Please. People. Do you want me to beg? I'll beg. I'm not begging you to vote my way because I'm such a big crybaby, I'm begging you to look into your hearts and ask yourself: is there a place on Wikipedia for Blunsdon United? Even if I promise to address whatever concerns anyone may have with regards to upholding the Wikipedia standards on the writing? Even if just merged into a larger article? Anywhere? Don't you care about a local football team? Well, I sure as hell don't, and I still want this to exist. This feels right, dammit.
    I promise this is the longest blurb you'll have ever seen me make on VfD. What more could I have to say? Look at the bright side: I'm more coherent than your average Sollog follower. :-) JRM 00:45, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
    • "is there a place on Wikipedia for Blunsdon United?" - apparently so, more's the pity. I'm making a note to write about my junior football team, the Kennington Saints, since at least we got more than 39 people watching some of our games. Apparently it wouldn't be disruption of wikipedia to prove a point to write that article, it would be adding "charming" content that "beatifully illistrates a wider subject". Shane King 06:20, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, please do write about them. Don't worry about it too much, Shane—the inclusionists will be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes (that is, Wikipedia 1.0). The People's Committee for Notability will then impose sanity upon this anarchy. And we will fork. (I'm only half-joking with all of this, obviously. :-) JRM 08:56, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has notability in that it beautifully illustrates a wider subject: local football teams in the UK. Well done guys. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reason as the user GeorgeStepanek--Chris Du 10:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with GeorgeStepanek. =) --Andylkl 19:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Del.Mikkalai 08:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 14:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Everybody look at www.wikicities.com. Once that's suitably up and running, can you say, Transwiki? (I'm getting a little worried at all the wikisomethings, though. What's next? WikiMath and transwiki all math articles?) JRM 09:47, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like the entry for Earth in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy this article is "mostly harmless". And if it's good enough for doctors to "do no harm" (see: Hippocratic oath), it should be good enough for us. Paul August 23:15, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Recycling Troll 23:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge - with Blunsdon. no need for a separate article and maybe the merge will prompt work on the Blunsdon article. - Trick 01:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no point in the senseless destruction of this article. Wikipedia is not paper, nor is it toilet paper. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wonderful little thing and, as said, doesn't harm anyone or anything. Tolo 14:24, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Charming, well written, and Wikipedia is not paper. Dbenbenn 17:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, salva veritate. --Ryan! | Talk 17:45, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blunsdon_United&oldid=1089101885"