Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sodswick Pigeons F.C

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sodswick Pigeons F.C

Page created by vandal, possible hoax. I haven't researched further. Also created now-speedied Ho Hum Stalemurk-Foulgrease Battery Hens F.C. -- Curps 12:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are a real football club.... I think! Research is hard for the very lower leagues but it seems right to me

Heh - whoops Delete They DON'T actually exist, I've just discovered, so go ahead and delete as ficticious. 12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

doktorb | words 12:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jcuk 13:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sceptre^(Talk) 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a real football team. I actually live near Sodswick, and have seen these play before in Derbyshire. They are a low-key team in the lower leagues (Level 10 I think) --202.156.6.54 12:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cant find anything to verify them, but if someone provides proof of their existance I'm happy to change my vote.....having said that 'level 10' is meaningless when talking about UK football leagues! Jcuk 15:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. There is no Sodswick in Derbyshire, or indeed anywhere. -- JimR 09:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair 13:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Division Two of the NW Counties can be found here [1] and there is no Sodswick team in it. Hoax. Keresaspa 14:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD votes by anonymous and new users can be ignored by the closing admin, even if their opinions are taken into account. In this case the "Strong Keep" above was especially suspicious. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 4 January 2006 (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.