Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geelong Dragons

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. Sandstein 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Dragons[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)

Not notable unsourced article. Does not play on a Fully professional league and does not meet our general notability criteria. Besides a couple of routine mentions, the only in-depth coverage I could find was local, from the Geelong Advertiser. I tried doing a redirect to another article with questionable notability, the Bell Park Football Club but it was reverted. The article seems to be promoting that organization, as it is full of inline links to their webpage, which is against WP:EE. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your reference to WP:FPL is wrong. That relates to association football leagues (and is used for player notability), not AFL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @GiantSnowman: I know that we don't have a notability guideline for teams and therefore only GNG applies, I was just pointing out that it is not a fully professional team for which coverage would probably be much easier to find. I am basing the nomination on the lack of in-depth coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NORG applies, although for future there are established notability guidelines for soccer teams at WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 10:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GiantSnowman. I did miss that part. I will keep it in mind for the future. For this case it clearly fails both as well. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note explicitly that FOOTYN is not a Guideline like NFOOTY, it's merely something useful that might help guide you, as it has never been formally adopted by the broader community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:NAFL does not cover clubs; players are only notable if they played in the AFL (VFL before 1990) or AFL women's or had major achievements in a state league. FIDA clubs fall completely outside this ladder. Unless Australian football is contested at the Special Olympics or similar national or international competitions (and this club competed at one), the only notability standard for this article is WP:GNG. Coverage of the team, based on what I see, is minimal. The one thing that might help the article is Be Dragons, the TV programme produced about the club, but even then I would argue that it is the programme that is notable, not the club. If an article were created for Be Dragons, then this page could be a useful redirect to that article. However, I do not see anything that indicates that this club is notable enough for an article about it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normal delete on unsourced grounds with a caveat that if sources are found that pass WP:GNG, the article may be recreated. (Also note this is an article about an Australian rules footy club, NOT a soccer-football club, so WP:NFOOTY/WP:FOOTYN don't really work here.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After being blocked, the author used a puppet evading the block to continue editing the article. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gwsforlife) The original username of the blocked puppet was "Bell park dragon's" which indicates that the article might have been created with a WP:COI. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2019 (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.