Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beenleigh Hawks

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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beenleigh Hawks[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. Part of a large set of articles on non-notable Australian clubs. This was prodded in the past, but prod removed by creator. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find significant coverage in secondary sources. Tavix | Talk 04:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete amateur club with no evidence of third party coverage. Given the status of sirburban baseball in Australia, reliable sources is highly unlikely. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2015 (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.