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. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvedon Hatch F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously deleted via PROD with the rationale Fails to meet generally accepted notability criteria for clubs, i.e. playing at Step 6 or above, or having played in the FA Cup/Vase. This concern remains valid.

I also think that this fails WP:GNG. In recent times, it gets name checks in local papers, for example in this article. Searching through British newspaper archives gives nothing significant unless you count the odd mention in results listings in the Chelmsford Chronicle as such. A book called Kelvedon Hatch, 1840 – 1920: A Guided Tour seems to make a reference to such a club; "The first mention of an official Kelvedon Hatch football team is from 1918, although it is believed there was a team before then." That's about all I could really find. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being from Essex, anything below Essex Senior League is not notable. Village team.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - well below the standard we should cover. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete I must register my huge disappointment in this being voted for deletion. This club is directly referenced on the Essex Olympian Football League page, and as you can see, various other clubs have their own pages on there (including ones in lower divisions of the league). I have created this page because it is of interest to the people of Essex, and the people of Kelvedon Hatch. The club has achieved considerable success over the years, winning a variety of tournaments and leagues and I for one believe that it deserves its own page. To even fight for my page that is not going against or harming anyone is absurd, and I have put so much effort into this page so its quite down putting to see you all want to take it down. Luke780 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those other clubs meet WP:FOOTYN because they have either played at step 6 or above or played in the FA Vase, FA Cup or other national cup. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. @Luke780:, we require reliable secondary sources to write encyclopaedia articles, this article is sourced only to the club's website and the league website, which don't count towards notability since they're effectively self-published. If you can find newspaper articles which cover the club significantly (we haven't found any yet), you can use those to show the club's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Have found an article, if no good then Delete The only newspaper article I could find of any significance was this one, featured in the Romford Recorder. If it is indeed no good then it pains me to say but I can see that you are all correct and the page should indeed be marked for deletion. Sorry to be a nuisance everyone, it was a simple mistake on my part if so. I hope you all have a great day Luke780 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is better coverage than anything that I managed to find but it still falls into WP:ROUTINE coverage, in my view. It's a local paper doing a build-up piece for the local cup with a comment from Hatch's manager. On its own, it doesn't do enough to establish the importance or significance of this club. In other words, it couldn't really be used to flesh out an encyclopaedia article in any significant way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as below the generally agreed threshold for club notability. Number 57 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As noted by others, the club does not seem to have the notability/level of coverage that would be required for it to have its own article. I would note that the Kelvedon Hatch article does not currently mention the club, so perhaps a brief mention of it there instead would be in order. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (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.