Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point Cook Soccer 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 no consensus. Nakon 01:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point Cook Soccer Club[edit]

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a soccer club. I found two local newspaper articles that discuss the club's under 12 boys team, but nothing that establishes that the club is notable per WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 16:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victorian State League Division 4. It is a run-of-the-mill local soccer club with routine local coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it Aymatth2 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Aymatth2. It is well-established that we require significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Routine local sports page coverage in free local weekly giveaway newspapers and the like is not sufficient to establish notability. As for not liking it, that is also false. My sons played in a similar local soccer league, and my wife and I edited the league newsletter for several years. I like amateur sports but do not think that the vast majority of local amateur sports clubs are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly correct. The two articles that I found read like press releases.- Mr X 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They read like typical local news reportage, not like press releases at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in depth by multiple reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reads well, referenced too. Educationtemple (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, thanks for fixing your typo! It came up on the vandalism page as "a**es", so I was worried for a second! Lol, thanks for the fix. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed

CookieMonster755 - We have a vandalism page ?, Out of all the letters the keyboard chose to miss it had to be the "P"

- I nearly had a heart attack myself haha

, You're welcome :) –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I use a page called User:Lupin/Filter recent changes, which scans for recent edits that may be vandalism. Glad you got that before I accidentally referred your edit

Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CookieMonster755 - Wait so If I swear that tool picks it up ? .... Damn

, Well thanks for noticing I guess (Although I had hoped it would go undetected

), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Davey2010, anytime you swear, it is detected by that page

so be careful what you post on talk pages, because I may see it ;) Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha in that case I'll be on my best behaviour from now on

, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:ORG: [1][2][3]. Esquivalience ^t 01:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If it gets to the National Premier Leagues, it will be notable, but its first team is not anywhere near to that. The Under-12s is just a passing mention in local news. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis you could nominate all the articles in category:Victorian State League teams for deletion. But that is not the way notability is determined. It is based on coverage by independent sources. Teams do not flicker in and out of notability depending on their league rank. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at those articles? The better articles are teams in the top 2 leagues in Victoria. Many of the others have no references or no independent references, so many of them should be proposed for deletion. Substantial coverage in independent sources is required. I agree that teams "do not flicker in and out of notability depending on their league rank" so we have articles about teams that were in a top league but have moved down. One that has always been in a low league is different. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them should be improved by adding more content supported by reliable independent sources, always a better option and generally much less time-consuming. These teams typically get a fair amount of coverage in the local press. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis -

Closely connected: 1

The national youth soccer tournament organizer giving an extensive discussion of the club and junior teams.

Trivial: 2
One short paragraph that mentions the club: 3
A download link for an app (not a source at all): 4
Routine local coverage in with a PR tone: 5 6

A newspaper reporting on the local team's successes

Article about a member team that barely mentions the club in passing: 7

A news article about the main team in the club, the men's team. I know of no example where a distinction is made between the club, the main team and the junior teams,.

- Mr X 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added comments above, indented. The notability test has nothing to do with importance. Just that reliable independent sources cover the subject in some depth, which is clearly the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, coverage is not significant and is all from local, minor newspapers. If it is kept, the article should be moved to Point Cook SC per standard naming conventions. Giant Snowman 21:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few local paper mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local papers are considered reliable independent sources, and these ones give significant coverage. The national tournament organizer also seems reliable. In what way does this fail Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline? It is a textbook example of passing that guideline. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is full of non-notable local soccer club articles that only survive because the sport has a lot of fans rather than because there is depth of secondary coverage. It has been shown above that the sources are inadequate to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2015 (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.