Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilcunda-Bass 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 redirect to Alberton Football League. I'm not convinced there's anything to merge, but of course it's still there in the edito history if needed. Black Kite 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilcunda-Bass Football Club

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

WP:NOTE. Amature football teams, not notable, no GHits Sk8er5000 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No "GHITS" (what exactly is a "ghit" anyway and why is it important ? Not everyone, especially new editors, are up to date on Wikipedia slang) is not an argument. There is a wider world of sources outside the google-imposed view of the universe. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHits are Google Hits. No sources have been proposed to prove the notability of the team as required by WP:V (you might want to read WP:CITEWIKI to know how to do so), and Google is the only available tool for non-locals to look for any. As - unless otherwise proved - only local sources can be found talking about the team in subject, the team remains relevant only locally. Therefore it has no space on Wikipedia. Therefore, Delete. McMarcoP (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I should have been clearer. I know what a "ghit" is (and how to cite sources, for that matter) I was making the point that use of such ugly neologisms should be avoided (or at least linked) in deletion discussions lest they alienate new editors. Secondly, the idea that Google is "only available tool for non-locals to look" is not only wrong, but will lead in time to an encyclopedia of things that Google has deemed of interest. This is to be resisted, not encouraged. No "ghits" (ugh) is - or at least should be - an argument ot be avoided. Of course, no sources cited is a valid one, and hard to refute in this case. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I noticed that you are not a "new" editor, but I consider myself to be (I created an account a couple of years ago just to correct some errors I had noticed on a certain article and restarted being interested about a month ago), and... there is a nice glossary that, I suppose, an editor might want to check. Still - I consider Google inherently objective because it will not give the result that "it fancies": it will show what Google-users are looking for. And we can safely assume that *most* Wiki readers will also be Google users (and somehow the other way around too). So I would keep considering Google Hits [yes, "Ghit" sounds like the name of an annoying critter] a valid argument... still, only my opinion. McMarcoP (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not notable. Fails WP:ORG and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Alberton Football League. It's possible that this and the other clubs are kickin' some bass, but it's difficult to tell whether this gets any significant coverage outside its local area. It looks like the K-B club has teams in several sports, and has for more than 50 years than its football team, maybe an article can be done about the organization. Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most Australian rules football teams in rural Victoria have amalgamated with their respective netball club, and therefore an article on the football club should cover the netball arm as well. The two competitions are intertwined, with the leagues featuring the same teams in footy and netball and the relevant fixtures aligned. The men in the family will play footy at a range of levels (two open grades and up to three junior grades) and the women will play netball (up to 4 open grades and a range of junior teams). Both will play in the same place on the same day and therefore half the town (players and spectators) will head off on a Saturday afternoon to a neighbouring town to play and watch sport. It is a part of the social fabric of rural Victoria. Doesn't necessarily make it notable of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? I'm surprised this one wasn't snowballed the first time! McMarcoP (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge current information into Alberton Football League somewhere, I'm sure the actual league gets coverage, but the club doesn't seem to create much on it's own. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Jeremjay24 _msg 12:42, 27 August 2009 (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.