Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greensborough Football Club

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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greensborough Football Club[edit]

This is about an amateur Australian football club. Turned down for speedy delete, but no real evidence of notability. Grahame (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the content is paltry, and what does it mean that an amateur sports club has "had considerable success to date". Successful results at the pitch? (That would mean something if this were a professional team, but for an amateur team the main goal is having fun and getting a chance to exercise and socialize, and winning or losing is less important.) Success at organizing teams for many people? Without real evidence of notability, deletion remains the only option sadly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable amateur suburban footy team, several rungs below AFL. Same would apply to other clubs in the league they play in. Murtoa (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this article sets a dangerous precedent. If deleted then you may as well delete the following articles:

Heidelberg Football Club North Heidelberg Football Club Bundoora Football Club Diamond Creek Football Club Eltham Football Club Hurstbridge Football Club Lalor Football Club Lower Plenty Football Club Macleod Football Club Montmorency Football Club Northcote Park Football Club Panton Hill Football Club Parkside Football Club Reservoir Football Club Watsonia Football Club West Preston Lakeside Football Club Whittlesea Football Club

and to the first dickhead that replied - the league is semi professional and one of the most prominent in Melbourne along with the EFL. Perhaps you should not interfere with something you know nothing about. Regards CTDU (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As suggested above, it's highly likely that the other clubs named would also fail in the absence of any other claims to notability. Murtoa (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we go ahead and delete all articles relating to suburban football clubs? I disagree with your comment, some of these clubs have been around for 130 years and have produced some of the greatest AFL/VFL players of all time. It's a kick in the guts of the highest order, you people should be ashamed of yourselves. CTDU (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge then is to demonstrate in these articles that the clubs in question have some importance beyond their status as suburban clubs in a local amateur football competition. If they boast such a rich vein of history and importance to the game as you appear to be claiming, then demonstrating it with notable content for this club for starters would be good. Murtoa (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the competition is not amateur, you have ex AFL players running around with weekly match payments in excess of $1500. It sounds to me like you don't know what you're talking about and it would be a good idea if you stuck to loyalty programs. Regards CTDU (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2008 (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.