Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Melbourne Football Club. Sandstein 20:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sports award limited to one club, which hasn't received much attention (mainly it is added as an epitheton ornans to "Daisy Pearce" in some articles, the award itself isn't the subject of independent attention I could find). Article was prodded, but prod removed because " It's a club best and fairest award... every club has one, and each has an article.." which is not really a policy based reason why this award is notable enough to have a standalone article. Fram (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Highest individual club award for a National Football team playing at the highest level, meets notability as its for a club with 100 years of history such award lists are always in sub articles to stop the main article being over loaded with such information. Gnangarra 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The award is two year's old, the women's club is 5 years old. Please check WP:N, your "meets notability" argument isn't policy-based at all. It would be much more logical, if you are worried about overloading the main article with the two-year, one-winner history, to create a separate article for the women's club (which is of course notable) instead of one for this minor aspect of that club... Fram (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The club is the Melbourne Football Club, the club has two teams, one playing the mens competition and one playing in the womens competition. Gnangarra 13:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • added a reference from an independent source about Daisy receiving Melbourne B&F awards, it defining characteristic about her, the club, and the team. Additionally Fox Sport has more about the award behind a paywall Gnangarra
          • it would be nice if you actually did add such a reference. The ref you instead added[1] is one of those I refered to in my opening statement, a truly passing mention of the award in an article about a player: "the dual Melbourne best and fairest winner thinks" is the only thing that source says about the award, which is thus not a source which confers notability to the award. And that's from a local sports radio, the kind of source one would expect to pay a lot more attention to the actual award, but the example given isn't even routine coverage of the award... Fram (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • To be fair, we're probably a fair way off splitting the women's teams into their own articles. We're not worried about the size of the main article increasing quickly due to this particular list (because, obviously, it won't), but it's certainly helpful to have them split off, even if the resulting articles are quite small to begin with. What I will say is that this is being done for all clubs with women's teams – I had one more left to create before you nominated this article for deletion. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • But "we do this for all clubs" is hardly a reason to create these if they aren't notable. This one certainly seems to be a so-far non notable award, and I'm not really convinced that any of the others is any better in that regard.
  • Keep (edit conflict) per all of the above. Also, the club is still over 150 years old; it's the women's team that's only been around for a couple of years, not a separate club, making the notability argument perfectly valid. Pinging the go-to Melbourne fan Flickerd. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congrats, you have just violated WP:CANVASS by explicitly pinging a club fan. Anyway, in what way does the age of the club confer Wikipedia notability to a two year old club award for a five year old club segment? (Oh, and "all of the above" is 1 person...). Fram (talk)
      • You're taking that too seriously... Flickerd's a Melbourne fan, but probably the go-to person across just about all things AFL; he would probably know more about the club itself than I would, however. "All of the above" referred to the reasons stated, not the amount of commenters – you are being very nitpicky. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • "All of the reasons stated" is fine, but there is nothing there even close to meeting WP:N. An old institution creating a brand new award for a brand new branch, where a few people from the club pick the best from their own players, is not a claim to notability. That the award is mentioned in passing by a local sports radio station is also not a claim to notability. So far, there have been two very swift "keeps", but no ground to base that "keep" on. Fram (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Club best and fairest awards don't always receive a whole lot of wide coverage, particularly in comparison to league-wide awards – your wording makes it sound as though only league-wide awards which have a lot of coverage/sources are notable enough to have their own articles, and club awards are not. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, what I try to say is that "only league-wide awards which have a lot of coverage/sources are notable enough to have their own articles". This is much more common for league-wide awards than for club awards, but there is no a priori rule that league-wide is notable, nor that clublevel is not notable. It's just that in this csae, it looks as if this specific club award is not (yet) notable. Fram (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • To me, the very first argument made – that the award is the highest individual honour at a club competing at the highest (national) level, which it is – should be reason enough. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • But notability is not inherited, and the "highest individual honour" for a small group of people decided by an even smaller group of people from the same club is not notable unless independent reliable sources give it significant attention, not passing mentions. You are free to try to get our notability standards changed so that the thousands of similar awards all over the world for clubs in all kinds of sports all are considered automatically notable, but I doubt you will have much success with this. Fram (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Melbourne Football Club; the fact that the women's team doesn't have an article should be a sign this is not a reasonable topic for an article at this time. The only non-trivial references are to the team's own website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm very mixed on this as to whether it constitutes its own article or whether it should be redirected to Melbourne Football Club. Although I do feel this article may be a bit WP:TOOSOON, in saying that, while the Melbourne best and fairest hasn't received a whole lot of independent coverage (probably due to who the winner has been and her multiple other achievements), other club B&Fs have [2], [3], [4], [5] as an example and I don't think we can have one club B&F deemed notable and others not. In addition, although this discussion focuses primarily on players (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 7#RFC on sports notability), editors within WP:AFL tend to edit in the way and believe AFL and AFLW are treated equally, i.e. all men's articles have B&FS and probably the reason for the creation of this page. Also in response to this being awarded to a "small group of people decided by an even smaller group of people from the same club", there was a real crackdown a few years ago in the project regarding non-notable club awards. This award, in my opinion, does not fall into that group as it is the most elite level women can play Australian rules football at and the preeminent award within each women's team. Flickerd (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS + project consensus are both not acceptable reasons to keep an article where no notability for the subject can be demonstrated. "I don't think we can have one club B&F deemed notable and others not. " is simply not the way enwiki works. No matter if other B&Fs are notable or not, has no bearing on keeping or deleting this one. All you basically are saying is "it should be notable", which is a nice sentiment but not a basis to decide AfDs on. Fram (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect If this is a notable award or a notable club, then it isn't reflected in the sources: Since it is clearly neither, redirect to the parent article, MFC. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect no independant coverage asserting notability. What there is is of a routine variety (Person X wins award) and not coverage about the award itself. Fails GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Melbourne Football Club: Definitely WP:TOOSOON; sources don't cover the award itself. Other AFLW B&F's should probably be redirected to their club articles as well, assuming the source quality is roughly the same. TeraTIX 02:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 30 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melbourne_best_and_fairest_(AFL_Women%27s)&oldid=849274538"