Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Knights

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. Probably best to re-list individually any clubs that appear to fail notability guidelines. Black Kite 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Knights[edit]

Notability; All clubs are in either the Western Australian Premier League or Division one, with possibly the exception of the Premier League final, games between these teams dont recieve significant coverage in local print media, none in the broadcast media. Players in the leagues are not professional players, though some do go on to play at professional levels of the game in Australia and overseas. Gnan garra 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full list - all non-notable clubs

Premier league

Division one

Delete all as nominator, Gnan garra 04:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would have to strongly disagree with the comments that they do not recieve coverage in local print media. The Sunday Times and The Western Australian both publish articles on the Permier League games in Western Australia on a regular basis. Am happy to cite examples of these if necessary. Dan arndt (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Aren't all of these clubs semi-professional? There would be no argument that players at this level would be non-notable (assuming they haven't previously been at a pro club) but wouldn't the clubs themselves be notable given it is the second tier of competition in Australia?The Hack 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is only one professional league, there is no second tier league in Australia these are state base leagues but even if we consider them to be 2nd tier league the issues is significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Gnan garra 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 04:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Cricket project determined (see WP:CRIN) that clubs playing Grade cricket, eg. Mount Lawley Cricket Club, Fremantle District Cricket Club, were notable, by virtue of them being "... the highest level below the state representative team". Is that not also the case here? –Moondyne 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without stating an opinion (as yet) on the notability of these football clubs, the difference between the cricket clubs and the football clubs is that the next tier up in cricket is representative selection; a Test or shield player actually belongs to one of the clubs rather than the state body. This is not the case in football, Perth Glory are a club in their own right, not a representative team from the Perth club competition. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how do the Western Australian semi-pro state league clubs differ from ohter state league club articles with respect to notability? Am I correct to assume this falls under WP:CLUB more specifically? batobatobato (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An earlier discussion about the NT league can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Dragons SC. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it should be a case of "one size fits all". For example, Floreat Athena has a long history (in Australian football/soccer terms) and for at least part of that time, prior to the inception of the National League in 1977, would have technically competed at the highest level of Australian football/soccer, since there was no higher level than State League. I'm not sure the Cricket project argument translates perfectly to all sporting codes. I'm not sure the NT league is necessarily perfect as a precedent either, considering the likely differential in standard. Murtoa (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't really care about precedents, notability conventions, wikiprojects, etcetera; I just want to know if these can be sourced. I've had a look around and I reckon it would be problematic, with the possible exception of Stirling Lions, which could be sourced to Vellios' Stirling Macedonia: a record of sporting achievement.
Contrast this with the situation with Australian rules football clubs at the same level of competition: we have Brian De Garis's From amateur to professional and back again (Swan Districts); Ken Spillman's Diehards : the story of the Subiaco Football Club; Kevin Casey's The Tigers' tale: the origins and history of the Claremont Football Club; Brian Atkinson's West Perth Football Club, 1885-1985; Jack Lee's East Fremantle Football Club: celebrating 100 years of tradition ; and so on. This is why it is dangerous to apply precedent across different sports. Hesperian 06:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re sources - "A soccer century : a chronicle of Western Australian soccer from 1896 - 1996" and "The Soccerites" by Richard Kreider are pretty comprehensive studies of Western Australian soccer. There are a number of journal articles also available specifically on WA soccer.The Hack 07:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, non notable clubs.--Grahame (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These clubs play at what is effectively the second level of Australian football, which IMO makes them notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP:ORG isn't met Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all play at a notable level some have even competed on a national scale which pass WP:ORG. Enough sources for them to meet WP:N as well. --Jimbo^[online] 09:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As a general principle based on the league/s they compete in, I don't see any of these meeting the WP:CLUB criteria. However, the additional criteria "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." opens the door for a case to be made when good reference material is found. That's not the case with any of the articles at this point in time. –Moondyne 09:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. Regardless of whether sources exist or not, all of these clubs play at a high enough level in the Aussie league system (one or two levels below the top flight) to make them notable by position. After all, we have articles for the top ten levels in England, and Australian levels 2 and 3 are equivalent to that in my view. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY says have significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, every article needs to meet this requirement. Gnan garra 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; verifiability is non-negotiable. Hesperian 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FourFourTwo seems to cover the league, as does AussieSportsInfo.com. I dare say there are news reports to be had elsewhere - this Google search seems a good place to start. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game results would support notability of the league but the clubs still lack independent sources to meet notability. Gnan garra 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Bettia. Giant Snowman 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per several above. While many players in these leagues may not be notable for playing in these leagues, the level they play at seems to be enough to claim notability for the teams. Reso lute 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Division One clubs, which are clearly non-notable. The Premier league clubs should probably be nominated individually. Hesperian 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, even some of the Division One clubs are sourceable e.g. Henk Beumer's Morley-Windmills: 50 glorious years, 1950-2000 Hesperian 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all and relist those that can't be sourced after some investigation. The argument that appears to have been made by the nominator and some others is not that clubs playing at this level are non-notable by way the level of football played but rather the claim is made that the articles cannot be sourced. As such I feel a mass nomination is inappropriate and each article should be listed individually. Some clubs may be able to be reliably sourced, others may not - but discussion over the articles as a group will not resolve these cases adequately in my opinion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's some merit in this approach, some questions need to be answered the couple of potential sources mentioned are they commissioned works(primary source)? are they independent(reliable source) of the subject? Gnan garra 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the club-specific sources I've mentioned are commissioned works. The soccer-in-WA sources that Hack mentions above are not. Hesperian 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Have started checking local histories and found some references to a number of the clubs. Believe that this information can be sourced, with a little bit of research. I do however believe that these clubs are notable in the own right. The clubs in the State Premier League receive regular independent news coverage in Western Australian media, with a number of players proceeding through to be notable players in thier own right. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.215.88 (talk • contribs)
Keep all per Bettia. Clubs at this high of a level do receive media coverage. Obviously players who are exclusively at this level aren't notable, but the clubs themselves are. matt91486 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the view that thought the players in the clubs are not notable, the clubs themselves areDGG (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2009 (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.