Deletion of Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C.

Comment: Comment''' I have not looked for sources for this club. However I hope that the closer takes note of the quality of the argument presented; the vast majority of these comments do not make a true argument for notability, citing  which most definitely is not . It's important to remember why SNGs exist: as a '''shortcut not a replacement''' to proving that an article subject meets  and . It is presumed that if an article topic passes SNG that there will be enough sources available to satisfy GNG. I don't have time at the moment to evaluate the sourcing offered by {{u|SportingFlyer}} but appreciate their efforts to make a GNG argument rather than relying on a project guideline in an AfD. If footy fans feel that FOOTYN should be more than it is, at minimum I would think about getting community consensus to incorporating AfD results into  if not . Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN||WP:NFOOTY||WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:NFOOTY)

Comment: does not meet WP:NORG ; signficant RS coverage not found.  is a project-specific essay and does not override community-wide policies and guidelines. Coverage is passing mentions and / or hyper-local, such as "match previews (1, 2) and match reports (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in local media", which are insufficient for encyclopedia notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FOOTYN)

Comment: I don't know if Dougal18 is on a witch hunt, but there is historic consensus that these lower clubs have enough notability that qualifies under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN)

Comment: I think the Dontan AfD was probably correctly decided based on what sources are easily available or searchable on the internet (I know we had someone who spoke Thai, but after some digging I think they were probably notable due to television coverage.) I do not think it means that  is irrelevant, but rather  is a presumption that can be overcome if  is unavailable. In this case, steps 9 (and even 10) of the English non-league are quite well documented in local sources. Furthermore nominator may simply have a case of  as per their nomination here, claiming a "bias" towards English football: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FA_Cup_semi-finals
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN||WP:FOOTYN||WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Fails  with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. It does not meet the SNG  (not to be confused with the essay ). The vast majority of Google hits I see are mere fixture listings, and the rest don't seem sufficient to be deemed significant coverage.  The refs currently in the article are to stats sites, non-independent sites, or trivial mentions.  I'm not a football fan, so would welcome anyone that can point to significant coverage that I have overlooked.  It would seem that if an AfD contests whether an article meets GNG, the response would be to identify the sources, not to echo essays or points not supported in established guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFOOTY||WP:FOOTYN)

Comment: Fails . The rest is irrelevant and, as suggested above, the wafflings of an old-boy's club
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment:  requires that {{tq|a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"}}. This club gets significant coverage in a number of independent sources, which includes in-depth match previews (http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dulwichhamlet/news/thursday-evening-match-preview-cray-valley-paper-m-1787764.html 1, https://www.cray-wanderers.com/cray-valley-paper-mills-vs-cray-wanderers-3816-match-preview-and-directions/ 2) and match reports (https://kentishfootball.co.uk/news/balhcray090518 1, https://kentishfootball.co.uk/news/craycray210718 2, https://kentishfootball.co.uk/news/craycroy070218 3, http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2017/07/dulwich-hamlet-fold-crease-and-crumple-at-cray-valley-again-in-pre-season-defeat/ 4, http://ashfordunitedfc.com/match-reports/26217-cray-valley-paper-mills-won-5-2/ 5, http://www.londonfa.com/news/2018/may/15/london-senior-cup-final-2018 6, http://balhamfc.com/balham-match/firsts-v-cray-valley-pm-4-1/ 7, http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dulwichhamlet/teams/56196/match-centre/0-3683657 8, https://talesfromthepigeonstands.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/cray-valley-paper-mills/ 9) in local media, rival club sites and various other football sites. There is a historical account of the club on the http://scefl.com/directory/clubs/cray-valley-pm-football-club offical league website and accounts of their ground appear in a number of online stadium guides. The only question is how reliable these sources are. If it was one online source, this might be an issue, but there are many independent sources, including reputable local media and offical organisations. It passes the criteria in . &nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes  and per significant previous consensus at AfD. And  works both ways - just because Dontan was deleted doesn't mean this should. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's not always an invalid argument. I wonder if anyone who cited that has actually read it. Besides, the sources are enough to meet GNG, so this is all moot anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: People are using the  argument for deleting this article. However the article sites numbers different sources, including two national football publications, as well as several other sources which are independent and not related to the club. When combined, these sources fit all of the General notability guidelines as set out on the GNG page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Personally I would change  to only accept FA Cup participation as being notable (so Amateur Cup, Trophy and Vase wouldn't be), but that's just me. As this club has played in the FA Cup, I'd keep the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN)

Comment: As already stated, this club fits the notability criteria laid down many years ago under  due to the level at which it plays
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN)

Comment: I would say English football club articles had digged too deep into amateur league, which the consideration should be more on  (or non-routine coverage on secondary source) when start to counting over 5 level below top level. It may be a good project for football dedicated encyclopedia, but in wikipedia it seem not that necessary. ''Keep'' only if non-routine source or even book (non-primary source one) about the club were digged out and insert to the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes |FOOTYN, has played in a national competition. Sources in this discussion seem to indicate GNG is satisfied, particularly considering the 100 year history of this club
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN)