Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Roar FC Youth League

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. If someone wishes deleted data for a future merge, just ask Wifione ^Message 19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Roar FC Youth League[edit]

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

Not a youth league, actually a youth team of the Brisbane Roar FC club. No indication why a youth football team merits a separate article. C 679 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 06:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not making my official decision yet but technically the A-League National Youth League is a nationwide league which spans all of Australia at a national level. I think that like in the way we give Premier Academy League teams like Arsenal F.C. Academy or Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy a separate article for playing at the national level that we should also do the same for Australia. As long as they can prove they have played in a national level then I see no need for the page to be deleted. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, those teams pass WP:GNG. In this case, this team appears to fail that guideline. I recommend Merging with Brisbane Roar FC - and also 2011-12 Brisbane Roar Youth League season should be merged into 2011-12 Brisbane Roar season. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the 2011-12 Brisbane Roar Youth League season article. Youth teams should not have season articles. Ever. But again I do have a few concerns about the youth team article being deleted. Yes it fails GNG but I bet with a bit of fine tuning that can be achieved. I may work on that to get it to pass. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources - and couldn't find anything useful - before I made that comment. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Okay, voting time. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Could deserve a mention on the parent article, nothing more. Giant Snowman 10:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and despite playing in a national league that really only fully works for senior clubs and not their youth teams. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brisbane Roar FC is a pretty big article and it could do with some scaling back, there is evidence of notability on the web from Australian sources. I do feel that an article for Brisbane Roar F.C. Reserves and Acedemy would be fine. On another note, isn't the redirects back to front? Should the article be on Brisbane Roar F.C. and Brisbane Roar FC redirecting to that? Govvy (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some of these sources? As to whether the redirects are backwards, well, it depends what the team refer to themselves as, I guess. An article on the reserves and academy (note, that's how you actually spell that word) might not be a bad idea - if there's some coverage on the teams. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Naming convertion we normally use on the project is F.C. for the article, That's been a standard, as for sources, 5 or more, I saw a few on google when I did a search, shouldn't be too hard should it? Govvy (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the naming convention, it does seem backwards, but I was hypothesizing. Are they from reliable sources though, and are they in-depth and non-trivial/non-routine pieces though? Lukeno94 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:54, 18 January 2013 (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.