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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Churchvilla FC (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)

PROD challenged by page creator as it is linked with the Cloyne page, but gives no indication why it is notable. Local sports team who play at an amateur level and have not generated sufficient independent coverage. C679 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 18:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can put in more references from paper reports etc... if want more notable coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomh903 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• are you in favour or against deletion govvy? Tomh903 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to fall short of WP:GNG, there are no gnews hits, the article on its parent league (Cork AUL) is only a stub with no table of clubs within it. Article relies entirely on self-published sources so doesn't meet WP:SPS. The creator could add some of this content to Cork AUL to strengthen that article if he wishes but only if it is properly externally referenced.—Baldy Bill (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (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.