Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sassco (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, as changes to the article compared with the previous version do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. The page has been WP:SALTed to prevent recreation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sassco

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sassco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable company, whose article is currently just a promotion. - Sorfane 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not self promotion. This is a WIKIPEDIA entry for the well established, professionally orientated and award winning 6-a-side League played at Downhill in Sunderland. The notable aspects are that the League is FA Charter Standard, strict on rules and has been web enabled since it's establishment in 1999. Since then it's had hundreds of teams taking part region wide.

As a non-profit organisation, it does not need promotion.

It was initially deleted by an American who are completely unaware of soccer's impact everywhere apart from the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davindersangha (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is if "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" After a Google search, I can find no evidence of that. - Sorfane 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Load of rubbish. Typing Sassco football in Google UK will see a lot of responses. Also, Whitehills FC, Washington Colliery FC and a number of other articles are still there.

Also the parent league, WCFL Wearside Combination Football League is on Wiki and Sassco is a part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davindersangha (talk • contribs) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, sources need to be independent of the subject. If your parent league is on Wikipedia, why don't you merge Sassco into that? - Sorfane 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, being new to editing on WIKI. How the hell do I get them to stop deleting the article. It's significant enough and I've seen dozens of pages with no references. Most of our references come in the local printed press and not on the internet. Also, the vast amount of teams don't have websites which means they wouldn't be able to show linkage to us.

Just cite some of the printed press sources. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding it to the parent page would not be fair. Firstly Sassco has much more history and vast archives as well as photos plus the other teams would think the WCFL wiki page is Sassco only. You have to understand that Sassco as an organisation has an 11-a-side team, an U18 team, A 6-a-side League and another 6-a-side League. So it's not just a single team.

And, as mentioned, several other teams are on wiki who are far smaller than us. I will try and cite some of the sources but don't know how to go about it. Any examples?

Take a look at this: How to cite a source - Sorfane 14:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Again, rubbish Nawlin.

Amateur League with no independent sources. It's listed on the Durham FA register as a Charter Standard League and also has an affiliation certificate on the Sassco website. http://www.sassco.co.uk/general_graphics/dfa_2005-2006.gif None of these are on the web. Just because something doesn't show on the web, doesn't mean it's not reliable.

Not notable. Again, being an American, you have no concept of what is notable and not when it comes to local football. The Sassco organisation is massively notable and outside of SAFC, probably has the most people looking at the website within the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davindersangha (talk • contribs) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example, why is Bedlington Terriers F.C. on. They are similar to ourselves in terms of structure. A team within a League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davindersangha (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
  1. Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end
  2. Please read WP:RS to see what is considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes
  3. Please read WP:WAX - the fact that another article may or may not be more or less notable is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue being discussed here is whether or not your article is notable, not somebody else's.
  4. Please do not verbally attack other editors or make claims as to what they may or may not know due to their nationality
Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Will do.
  2. RS - Is the local press not a reliable source. Is the governing body of regional football not a reliable source. Also, the local authority has the organisation as one they recommend.
  3. WAX - Well, the examples I have put out are similar teams, so where I understand that it's us against them, it puts the argument that my page being notable to rest.
  4. It's irritating when someone just deletes something without a detailed explanation. The person deleting it has not got a clue how large the organisation is and who it serves. If I started a petition, then it'd be clear - but I haven't got time for it. Davindersangha (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The local press is a reliable source, however you have yet to cite any specific coverage the league has received in the local press -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why does the other dude keep deleting it. I've lost all my changes so can't add to the damn thing. I've added some local sources and it's just been deleted again! --Davindersangha (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask one of these guys for a copy of the latest version and put it on a subpage of your user page (e.g. at User:Davindersangha/Sassco). Then work on it for a while, add the sources using Wikipedia:Citation templates and try re-creating it. --Slashme (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sassco_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142231323"