Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South East Football Netball League

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 arguments for delete were brought outside of the nominators. Consensus is that GNG is met, although this is not a strong consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South East Football Netball League[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The only independent sources I found were local coverage and this book. WP:NAFL doesn't apply as SEFNL is a separate, regional league and not the top-tier competition. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NAFL is for the notability of players, not for regional competitions. Being familiar with the standard of coverage for local district footy leagues (not a ton I can find online, but for instance: [1] [2] [3] [4]) I'm also not sure if someone's tried to delete a district footy league before? SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The SEFNL is centered in one of the fastest growing areas in suburban Melbourne. As new familys move into the area Wikipedia pages like this one would help them feel more settled in their new environment. Purrum (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Purrum: Hi. I'm sorry. You're not new here. Have you ever read WP:N? You created the article in question but did you ever consider notability and sourcing? Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources. This AfD is fascinating to me since there's very good coverage of these leagues locally, and there's not much that differentiates this district league from other suburban district leagues in terms of media coverage. Other district leagues have been kept or merged (and only merged with defunct), and the only Aussie Rules league that has been AfD'd so far that I can tell was a junior league which was speedy deleted for copyright violations! I think this gets past WP:GNG as again Aussie Rules district leagues receive a good amount of local coverage due to the fact the leagues tend to be culturally important to the area, not unlike the many English football league articles we keep at the lower levels of that pyramid. If it doesn't, it should be merged, not deleted outright. Let me see if I can find a good merge candidate. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] SportingFlyer talk 06:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a source - from Mildura! [10] SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed stuff like that (I mentioned specific local coverage in my nomination). WP:SPORTCRIT says primary sources aren't enough for notability. I don't think local coverage is enough for general notability, either. Please see WP:MILL. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the sources I've posted are primary - they're all newspaper articles on the league. There is also no "local coverage doesn't count" requirement for general notability. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the WP:MILL assessment here. This is at the highest level of grassroots footy in Australia, and if you go to almost any town article in Victoria they discuss the town's Aussie Rules club, including the suburbs in this league (though Beaconsfield needs a good update.) SportingFlyer talk 14:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Australian rules football at the grass roots/amateur level doesn't get a lot of widespread coverage in Australia apart from local coverage. I would still say the sources brought forward by SportingFlyer are independent and enough to meet GNG. I do feel that there probably could be a better guideline for Australian rules football competitions in terms of notability as I feel if this page is deleted, then every league apart from AFL and state leagues would be deleted. Flickerd (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that WP:ALLORNOTHING is not an argument to use at AfD? Chris Troutman (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the main reason I stated to keep it, the sources and the level of coverage received in Australia were. That was just a side comment to say there needs to be a better guideline for ARF competitions. Flickerd (talk)

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.