Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFL Heritage Round

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. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. A merge is possible, but this can be solved outside AfD. Tone 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Heritage Round[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The event itself, which lasted for six years during the 2000s decade, attracted nothing other than WP:ROUTINE coverage from sportswriters at the time. The only source given on this page is an enthusiast's site which documents images of VFL/AFL club guernseys. Conclusion can be drawn that this was never truly a notable event. Aspirex (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG in period sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] SportingFlyer talk 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the then upcoming heritage round, and the other two are nostalgia articles which happen to mention Heritage Round's existence but which give no actual coverage of the event itself. These do not do enough to satisfy GNG for this topic. Aspirex (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are feature articles about an upcoming event; I strongly disagree with you they're routine sources, and will try to fix the article up. SportingFlyer talk 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more references available, even if some of them are not the best ones. There is sufficient NEXIST to support GNG. First thought was to merge with Australian Football League or similar but there is sufficient content and due weight for a split if it was there so keep as a separate article. Aoziwe (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep more merge with the individual seasons aka 2003 AFL season, 2004 AFL season which have sections for each round anyway. I think a soft redirect with statement on what the heritage round concept was and linking back to each season it was played. Gnan garra 14:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the individual seasons, the heritage round results are already there in the 2003, 2004 season articles but with no prose. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 21 October 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.