Talk:Newcastle United F.C.

Newcastle United Independent Supporters Association was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Newcastle United F.C.. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newcastle United F.C. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Newcastle United F.C. was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 11, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 18, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 9, 2018, December 9, 2021, and December 9, 2022.
Current status: Delisted good article

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: England High‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as High-importance).

North East England Top‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Controverisies section?

Would it be worth it to have a section for the reaction to the saudi takeover? like the human rights stuff etc? Hbatey1105 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Philgeordie1 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes. The purchase of Newcastle sparked alot of outrage, especially amongst other clubs' fanbases. 2A00:23C6:C18C:AA01:856B:8959:B0AC:3B51 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January Transfer Window

Anyone be interested in making a section talking aboiut the jan window?

-more money spent in this jan than all jans with ashley combined -ambition etc?

dont know if it would fit, so i am asking here Hbatey1105 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Founding date - 1892 is not correct

It is a well known myth that Newcastle East End and West End merged to create Newcastle united. The actual truth is West End ran into financial difficulties and dissolved. I believe it is important that the founding date is shown as "1881 - As Stanley FC."

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/history/so-newcastle-united-were-formed-20766876 HellawBestPizza (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle United were founded in 1892. Hence this season they made a special 130 year shirt Philgeordie1 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cr7 to Newcastle

Cr7 might join Newcastle F.C. on loan because AL Nassr sends money to Newcastle plus there qualifying to the UCL and Cr7 said he will end his career at europe. Harsh1boo (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was not true. There have been no discussions regarding CR7 Philgeordie1 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Philgeordie1 ok Harsh1boo (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Newcastle United F.C.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2011 promotion (which hasn't been reviewed since) has several problems. Several citation needed tags, a section (Social responsibility) that has an advertisement tag, the History section is skewed towards events that occurred after the formation of the Premier League, several paragraphs throughout the whole article that have citations could possibly need more, possible unreliable sources (ex. Super Mac and Terrace Chants), etc. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.