Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essendon Royals SC

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essendon Royals SC[edit]

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

A low-notability sports club which doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:FOOTYN. No coverage in reliable sources, and has not played in the FFA Cup or prior national football competitions. Also currently no references. Kb.au (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club has played in the FFA Cup in every season since 2014 so meets WP:FOOTYN (playing in the qualifying rounds counts as playing in the competition – see e.g. this AfD on an English club that played in qualifying rounds only – plenty more examples like this if needed). Number 5 7 00:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Soccerway shows FFA Cup participation (for info, I've initiated a Wikiproject discussion about the criteria at WP:FOOTYN). Nzd (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per findings above. Govvy (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Seems like an incorrect interpretation of WP:FOOTYN. The logical interpretation of "teams that have played in the national cup" would mean only those who've qualified to play in the Cup itself – ie. the qualifying 32. Ridiculous to suggest that any minor local club with barely enough coverage to even pass WP:V meets the notability guidelines. Regardless, WP:FOOTYN is not a formal notability guideline, but rather is merely an essay. Thus should be read in conjunction with WP:NCORP which applies to teams, as WP:NSPORT does not. There's no way this team comes even close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Kb.au (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately yours is the wrong interpretation, as demonstrated above with the Plymouth United AfD or this or this one. There are more which I can add tomorrow if you need further evidence. Number 57 01:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it's a notability essay which should not be followed then as it is an ADVICEPAGE that is completely out of line with formal enwiki notability guidelines. Even formal notability guidelines are just guidelines. How can a club be notable if it has next to no coverage in independent sources? Is there even enough coverage to meet WP:V which is a policy? It's a local soccer club playing in a nation where soccer is not widely followed compared to other sports. Kb.au (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nzd. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in National Cup competition. NZFC^(talk) 02:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the national cup participation point raised above seems like an error to me. They have never participated in competition proper and the qualification setup for the FFA cup for Victoria is based on a completely separate cup competition. That being said, there seems to be a reasonable amount out there to satisfy GNG, particularly under the old club name. I would note:

Recent reporting on club performance
article in Italian on the club
further coverage of the club in the context of ex pat teams
more brief coverage in a wider summary

Would assume there is more given the club's history. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Giant Snowman 12:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: using FFA Cup participation as a measure of notability is disingenuous when every FFA-affiliated club in Australia is eligible to enter. Hack (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above by virtue of playing in the FFA Cup. Smartyllama (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2018 (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.