Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy

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 no consensus. Discussion regarding merges can continue on article talk pages, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy[edit]

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

Lack of notability; specifically, it lacks any significant coverage. Any significant coverage on Collingwood Football Club best and fairest awards is primarily about the Copeland Trophy; any other minor awards presented at that night, including the Joseph Wren, the best clubman, etc., receive no significant coverage in their own right. Aspirex (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Late addition) I am also nominating the following two low-importance Collingwood Football Club awards (one for best first-year player and one for the season's leading player in the one-percenters statistic).

This is a late addition to the deletion – as I have only just discovered these articles' existence – but it is clear that these articles have the same notability problems as Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy and can be easily bundled. Aspirex (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a b&f award of a separate league (VFL) to the Copeland Trophy. Also there are separate articles talking only about the Joseph Wren Trophy and its winners. For examples see [1], [2], [3] --SuperJew (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all three of those are primary sources from the Collingwood Football Club website. While this is adequate for verifiability, it is a weak argument in establishing notability. Aspirex (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: two links not from the Collingwood website: [4], [5] --SuperJew (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those are from the VFL website, and therefore also a primary source; and, they fall under the category of routine coverage, which is also a weak argument in establishing notability. Aspirex (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question:: Could you please give examples regarding the Copeland Trophy that do show this notability you speak of? --SuperJew (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: This is a difficult request, as the notability of the Copeland Trophy is established not through a single reference or references which explicitly state "this award is notable", but a wide range of articles over a long period of time which – when viewed together – are reflective of a world which treats the award as notable. A search of the Fairfax archives from the past ten years has hundreds of references to the Copeland Trophy ([6]); many of these were articles and/or puff pieces about notable players in which Copeland Trophy victories are listed/described amongst the career highlights of those players.([7] [8] [9]) The AFL Hall of Fame citations list club senior best and fairests amongst player achievements [10]. It's not uncommon to see a player offhandedly described as "Copeland winner" or "dual Copeland winner" to add colour to a news report. No such case exists for the Wren: that same Age search reveals only four articles in ten years, all of which were routine coverage reports on that year's Collingwood's best and fairest. [11] It's true that if you look hard enough you'll find articles which mention players' Wren Trophies amongst their career highlights; but these are generally players who barely meet notability guidelines in their own right, such as Kyle Martin (whose six game senior career will be all but forgotten in AFL circles by the end of the decade, no offence to the man). For well-known players who did win the Wren, its importance as a career achievement is basically considered zero when the player has achieved anything else of note (e.g. this article about Heath Scotland's retirement doesn't bother to acknowledge his Wren amongst his career achievements [12]; and this article considers Jason Cloke's 76 senior games for Collingwood and his career for Spotswood more worthy of note than his Wren Trophy at Williamstown [13]). Aspirex (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Useful list, but better merged into Collingwood Football Club#Reserves team. Significant coverage doesn't exist to justify own article. Jevansen (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe better merged into Copeland Trophy than Collingwood Football Club#Reserves team. I would have thought it was pretty low value content for the main Collingwood Football Club page. (Note: I still favour outright deletion) Aspirex (talk) 04:47, 3 May 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, Davewild (talk) 09:12, 3 May 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, Davewild (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator added two more articles to be considered for deletion on 14 May 2015, listed under the "Late addition" section atop.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three to Collingwood Football Club. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two more articles were added to the nomination on 14 May 2015. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 29 May 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.