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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely non-notable - it is a youth team below reserves. SenorKristobbal 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, terrific example of what should never appear on Wikipedia --Angelo 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly non-notable. BlueValour 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though one or two sentences from the srticle might be worth putting into Youth system, in terms of the role of an academy and what facilities are required to gain Academy status. Other than a club's own literature, English youth teams are generally only reported on if they reach the FA Youth Cup final. Oldelpaso 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. – Elisson • Talk 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and expand. The article passes points 3 and 4 of Wikipedia:Schools and is therefore notable, despite what my esteemed colleagues might think. They think it should be deleted because of it's obvious affiliation with Liverpool F.C., and that it should be considered as part of that article. I disagree. While it is owned by LFC and the intake is purely on the basis of hand-picked sports scholarships, it is a school in the normal educational sense as well as a top-class sports training facility, see here. aLii 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that they think that it should be deleted because the article is sourced from a single web page, that is not from a source that is independent of the subject; is non-neutral because its sole source is highly promotional (One example: The article parrots the peacock terms and academic boosterism that the web page uses, such as "legend" and "very high-tech", verbatim.); and with the inclusion of things such as the address, post code, and telephone number of the school, reads like a cross between a marketing brochure for parents of prospective students and a business directory listing, in violation of our Wikipedia is not a business directory nor an advertising billboard policy.

    There is a reason that the primary criterion of WP:SCHOOL requires sources that are independent of the subject. It is to avoid ending up with exactly such bad articles as this. I suggest finding and citing some sources that satisfy the primary criterion, i.e. that are not from the school and football club themselves, in order to demonstrate that there's actually the possibility that a neutral article can be written on this subject. Uncle G 00:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Liverpool Echo and Daily Post regular coverage of the sporting side of the academy.
    • An in-depth article in the Guardian.
    • Bizarre account of how a Britannia Liverpool FC Save and Support account donates money to the academy.
    • Kirkby Times coverage about a supposed scandal surrounding the purchase of the land the academy is built upon.
    • I'm sure there have been other examples, but not all media is achieved on the web, and I've only searched about six probable outlets. The BBC had various articles that mentioned the academy, but nothing specifically about the academy. (for example this article about the FIFA inspection team being shown around the academy in 1999, when England was bidding to host World Cup 2006.) aLii 01:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is about school and football club. Are all the above Evertonians still not over Rooney!. It maybe reasonable to merge article with Liverpool F.C. Reserves Djln--Djln 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - mostly waffle in the style of advertising (and may well be part copyvio), what little information that is useful can be merged into the main Liverpool F.C. article. Qwghlm 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' per Uncle G. Kappa 06:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please per alii and uncle g this subject is notable and important to have here Yuckfoo 06:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't pass WP:School. Although it may pass criterion, those are criterion for if a school is notable. This isn't a school as it doesn't recieve OFSTED reports. SenorKristobbal 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per excellent analysis by User:Alii h, which makes it clear that the subject meets all independent criteria of notability. The article needs to have its POV strongly toned down and to have the documented independent coverage of the Academy added in, but those are all cleanup tasks, not valid justifications for deletion. Alansohn 12:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:DP. --Usgnus 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That isn't a reason thats the deletion policy. SenorKristobbal 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, how come none of the people interested in keeping the article have done anything to improve it or even include the sources brought up during this afd? You're supposed to edit the article to confer notability, the references are not helpful for the encyclopedia if they're only linked to in the Wikipedia namespace. - Bobet 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, personally I was waiting to see that my work wouldn't get deleted. If this ends positively I'll do my bit to rewrite the article. aLii 21:38, 12 September 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.