- 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
River Swift Football Club
- River Swift Football Club (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)
Seems promotional, non-notable. If you look under "current squad" you will see the name "Harry Simmons." If you go to the edit history the only user who has edited this article is Harrydlsimmons. Music1201 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable local club. GiantSnowman 10:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - the club needs a lot more coverage to become notable...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of, or, in this case, a total absence of third-party reliable sources about the club. I also think that it is unlikely that David Beckham is on their books! Spiderone 18:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN has never played in a national competition, nor is eligible for one. Looking at the article and the foundation date, have they even played any matches yet? Fenix down (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no indication of significant coverage. C679 10:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.