232:
unsourced and troublesome - at the level they apparently play in, claiming that they're one of the most successful clubs in
Britain is difficult to justify. And being the only one to have all age levels is wonderful, but hardly a notability claim. If I establish a tiddlywinks team that beats all comers in my village, winning every competition we enter for five years, I could similarly claim we're the most successful ever. At any rate, none of this matters, except to prevent a speedy (done). I'll be perfectly happy for the article to remain here, no matter how successful or unsuccessful they are, if the article can pass
298:- the article in its current state makes no assertion of notability at all. Sure there's some stuff in the reference (two paras in the might Edgware Times which looks like an advert for the club to me) which refers to some of the individual members of the club and some success at U16 level but there's nothing in the article. Moreover, the article is simply a list of honours, most of which are trivial. Even the senior honours aren't explained, nor linked to. Until there's something worth salvaging, the article should be deleted.
159:. The reference in the article says, "Kilburn Gaels Hurling Club are one of Britain's most successful and currently the only one in the country to field at all grades (from U10s to seniors)." That sounds pretty notable to me. And hurling is an amateur sport in Britain, so the fact that it is not a professional club shouldn't count against it.
217:
standard for notability (in your prod and this nomination) I think you're confusing notability standards for individual players with those for clubs. Individual players are usually accepted as notable only if they have played in a professional league, but clubs are generally accepted at lower levels.
231:
You could be right... check my contribs to see what kind of a day I'm having. The statement "one of
Britain's most successful and currently the only one in the country to field at all grades (from U10s to seniors)" is fine and dandy, but the claim (one of the reasons I didn't speedy the article) is
216:
If it's one of
Britain's most successful clubs then yes, why not? The generally accepted notability criterion for English football clubs goes down several levels below the top amateur level, so we should apply equivalent standards for other sports. With your insistence on professionalism being the
250:
The statement is sourced - it comes from the reference in the article. We don't require our sources to themselves have references to sources - that way you could go on ad infinitum having sources for sources for sources for sources for...
120:
127:
Disputed prod. Club plays in "senior ranks of London hurling" according to their website. Not professional team, although clearly a well organised amateur set-up.
87:
82:
91:
74:
17:
307:
278:
260:
245:
226:
209:
186:
168:
151:
136:
56:
78:
303:
322:
36:
70:
62:
321:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
177:
Baseball is also a non professional sport in
Britain. Does that mean that my local baseball club is notable? --
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
205:
256:
222:
164:
299:
147:
201:
274:
252:
241:
218:
182:
160:
132:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
193:
270:
269:. Apologies for sub-par contributions. Will return refreshed in a few days, lol. --
237:
178:
128:
108:
233:
197:
49:
265:
Ever get the feeling you're not on top form? I'm taking myself off-wiki
315:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
115:
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
325:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
7:
24:
236:. Which currently it doesn't. --
145:, as non-notable. -- JediLofty
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
342:
71:Kilburn Gaels Hurling Club
63:Kilburn Gaels Hurling Club
308:16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
279:15:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
261:14:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
246:14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
227:14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
210:02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
187:12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
169:12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
152:12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
137:10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
57:01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
318:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
333:
320:
300:The Rambling Man
118:
112:
94:
54:
34:
341:
340:
336:
335:
334:
332:
331:
330:
329:
323:deletion review
316:
194:Croydon Pirates
150:
114:
85:
69:
66:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
339:
337:
328:
327:
311:
310:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
214:
213:
212:
172:
171:
154:
146:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
338:
326:
324:
319:
313:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
263:
262:
258:
254:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
215:
211:
207:
203:
202:Kinston eagle
199:
195:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:
174:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
153:
149:
144:
141:
140:
139:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
317:
314:
295:
266:
253:Phil Bridger
219:Phil Bridger
161:Phil Bridger
156:
142:
126:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
198:London Mets
267:right now
200:, etc..
121:View log
271:Dweller
238:Dweller
179:Dweller
129:Dweller
88:protect
83:history
296:Delete
143:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
46:Delete
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
52:Nakon
16:<
304:talk
275:talk
257:talk
242:talk
234:WP:V
223:talk
206:talk
183:talk
165:talk
157:Keep
148:Talk
133:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
306:)
277:)
259:)
244:)
225:)
208:)
196:,
185:)
167:)
135:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:,
302:(
273:(
255:(
240:(
221:(
204:(
181:(
163:(
131:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.