Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-league 2nd division

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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-league 2nd division[edit]

This football competition is not even at the official proposal stage and is merely a discussion point for the media. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In addition, the lack of citations for claims made and sentences such as "It is expected a side from the Gold Coast and possibly Geelong may be given a go, while a Northern Queensland bid and a Western Sydney/Wollongong bid are likely to be given access straight to the A-League 1st Division" make it look suspiciously like original research. Mattinbgn\^talk 21:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mattingbn. Come back when it's gotten past consideration. Mandsford 00:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In no way it deserve to be a WP article. Non-notable, uncategorized and also requires huge copy-edit. So, overall decision from my side will be delete. Niaz^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 09:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sold on some of your rationale, there, Niaz. The article claims (although in a less than clear way) that it would be the second division of a national-level football tournament, so if it ever gets off the ground I think it'll be notable. Lack of a category isn't a reason to delete, and neither is the fact that the article's in need of a copy-edit. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to concede that something like this is being discussed, but if there are sources providing the information that this article claims (not all of which is entirely clearly written anyway), an independent article isn't the right place for the moment. When something concrete exists, in proposal form at least, then a new article could be written on the topic. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keb25 13:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Number 5 7 08:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I feel there would be much better grounds for keeping this article if some reliable sources could be provided as references, the Australian football association for example. If there are real verifiable plans to set this league up, rather than just pure speculation the article should be kept. King of the North East (T/C) 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What little I've heard about it offline suggests that there are verifiable plans to set something up, but the detail that this article contains is more than anyone's actually declared publicly yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this some sort of sick joke. Twenty Years 13:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it seems legitimate, but definitely add more sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 2 October 2007 (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.