Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hervey Bay Bombers AFC
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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hervey Bay Bombers AFC[edit]
- Hervey Bay Bombers AFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Apparent vanispamcruftisement. In any case, club appears to be on the lowest tier of the Aussie rules football ladder--fails WP:N per precedent. Blueboy96 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable local club Recurring dreams 10:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as certainly not notable. Note that User:Bombersstatbat who created this article has already removed the AfD notice once. I have replaced it and warned him. --Bduke 10:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete they don't meet WP:N nor WP:CORP.Garrie 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge appropriate content to AFL Bundaberg-Wide Bay and redirect. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 23:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How does AFL Bundaberg-Wide Bay meet either WP:N or WP:CORP?Garrie 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That article is not (yet) up for deletion. If you think it should be nominated for deletion, then nominate it. I do think that the best way to get an article up and running on these types of competitions is to have information on the clubs listed there and to split the clubs into their own articles only when enough information become available. If you want my opinion of the notability of the competition, then my opinion is yes, I think it is notable and yes, I think secondary sources can be found to establish this. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Mattinbgn. There is no material currently making the case for a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Mattingbn. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:57, 17 July 2007 (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.