Talk:Dundee F.C.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to not merge into Dundee F.C. -- Dpmcalister (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The two articles Dundee Our Boys F.C. and Dundee East End F.C. do not contain sufficient content to warrant separate articles. The content could easily be merged to Dundee F.C., and the two articles should be made into redirects to Dundee F.C.. – PeeJay 19:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Unless someone can find a decent source which could be used to substantially expand those two articles, there really isn't any need for them. Bettia (rawr!) 14:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Both articles have improved now, so they can be kept. Bettia (rawr!) 12:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Neither predecessor club was particularly notable, only playing for a few years and not in the Scottish Football League. The history of those clubs can be covered within the main Dundee F.C. article. The same could be said of the three predecessor clubs of Aberdeen. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree - these two clubs were separate entities in their own right, each doing rather well in the Scottish Cup in their own right. No problem at all with keeping them as they are - stub articles are fine. - fchd (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. While both clubs were separate entities they became one entity and, as such, should be merged with the main Dundee F.C. article. Dpmcalister (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The two articles in question were very sparse when I first made my decision. Having reviewed them since, they contain enough information to, in my view, warrant being kept as separate articles. Dpmcalister (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - work the articles up rather than complain about lack of content. If Liverpool and Everton were to merge tomorrow, would you suggest that both current pages should be merged into one? WikiGull (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably an even better analogy would be Rushden & Diamonds - both the merging partners Rushden Town and Irthlingborough Diamonds still have their own article detailing their history pre-merger. - fchd (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree largely on the basis that both clubs played a decent level (i.e. in the Scottish Cup) prior to the merger and are therefore notable in their own right. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree as both contain too much information to be made in to sections of the Dundee FC page, so would seem totally out of place if added into the main Dundee page. Both were reasonably successful in their time of existence, albeit a fairly short period of time.Salty1984 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree the articles are good enough to keep them. Doma-w (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. The clubs concerned voluntarily combined to create Dundee FC. This was because neither club was of sufficient stature to be able to convince existing Scottish League clubs to support either of them for election to the Scottish League. Having voluntarily decided to give up their own identity in 1893 I therefore cannot understand why anybody now would see them as anything other than as founder clubs for Dundee FC and thus a major part of Dundee FC early history. The links are continuous. For example, I'm sure Dundee played at the Our Boys ground at West Craigie Park for at least half of the 1893/94 season before moving to the East End pitch at Carolina Port. I'm also fairly sure that the club colours were drawn from Our Boys and East End. In addition, some of the first Dundee FC players were drawn from Our Boys and East End. Without the merger of the clubs then, Dundee FC would not have existed, therefore by extension, I think that their history should be regarded as a part of the early history of Dundee FC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.137.176 (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree the articles would be much more educative on their own and more than big enough to be independent articles.--Sioraf (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)