Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Grammar Schools of Victoria Sport Champions - Girls


 * 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 wasDelete this comment sums it up Unreferenced, unsourced, unencyclopedic lists of trivial, non-notable amatuer sports competitions in Australia Gnangarra 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Associated Grammar Schools of Victoria Sport Champions - Girls
As per all the editorial issues of Aquinascruft. I am also enjoining the following articles to this AfD:

Thewinchester (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Thewinchester (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unreferenced, unsourced, unencyclopedic lists of trivial, non-notable amatuer sports competitions in Australia. Savin Me 08:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge most into their respective articles about the group. e.g. Combined Associated Schools Sports Champions needs to be merged into Combined Associated Schools (I've tackled this one).  I assume most of the others also need similar merges.  (Note that per GFDL, I think that these merges require the original article to be a redirect with history retained) John Vandenberg 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment With due respect to your comments John, how does a merge proposal solve key issues of WP:V and WP:RS with the content? All the information would have had to be sourced from self-published articles, which just don't cut it. This is not withstanding that regardless of where the information lies it would be considered an unencyclopedic lists of trivial, non-notable amatuer sports competitions and would be removed on the spot from any article it was inserted into. Thewinchester (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Dont start wikilaywering this, esp. after having taken others to task on it. We try to keep material that is verifiable; guidelines on how that is best achieved are useful but so is common sense.  Self published sources are a problem for ideas that people put forward; for facts and figures and results, you go to the authoritative source, which is the respective organisation.  The official NBL game results are acceptable.  I dont support the "Champions" pages in themselves, but I do think that lists of this information is valid information on the articles about the organisation. Its useful content about notable associations of notable schools. John Vandenberg 08:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In this merge, the only information that could really be merged would be regarding the development of the sports (eg. when they were introduced, when format of sport competiton was changed etc) I would strongly disagree to a merge of the trival data (sports champions of certain years). None of these articles really offer anything that the parents article doesnt already state. I think it can be summed up like so: "Who won the 1941 AGSV Atheletics Championship?" the answer is: Who cares? No-one. Savin Me 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you bother looking at the article that I merged the Champions info from? It was missing a lot of info.  Maybe it has too much now, but that is a content issue that can be dealt with over time. John Vandenberg 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I overlooked that. But the problem with that is: Someone may come along and see: this article is too big - there are readability issues etc and break the article up and start another one of these sports things. Is it really notable the year that a certain school won a certain competitions athletics championship? Savin Me 09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am willing to hang my hat on the fact that someone will want to research the history of the tussle between these schools, and I hope Wikipedia is the first place they turn. By removing all of these "Champions" pages now as merges, hopefully people wont be keen on creating sub-pages in the near future.  If that do, thats a bridge we can cross then; it is quite possible that consensus is different at that time. John Vandenberg 09:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have converted me Savin Me 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Per JV. Savin Me 09:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see the encyclopaedic value of the data (it seems to more want to belong to a website of its own), I agree totally with Savin Me's earlier comment at 08:40 in that *some* information may be mergeable however. My main consideration is that we've seen far too many of these sprout out of nowhere in the past 6 months on Australian private schools (imagine what'll happen when the public schools get in on the act next year...), and it seems to be quite a good demonstration of the school cruft essay per nom. Orderinchaos 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Is Wikipedia the places to host lists of this type? Is this information of any interest for anyone other than current and former students?    Is this content encyclopaedic in nature?  My opinion on all the above is no.  If this information is of some value to others, let them host it on another website and/or wiki set up for that purpose.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. -- Mattinbgn/talk 12:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge While lists of winners don't really belong here, the verifiable facts that there was a Commonwealth Bank (Rugby League) Cup between 19XX and 19YY is encyclopedic and belongs somewhere. Overall trends in which schools won consistently is even worth incorporating. I would love to see a School sport in (state) series of articles, but I don't think it is worth going lower than that. If there is reasonable material to cite, it would even be worth having School level (sport) in (state) (EG: Schoolboy Rugby League in New South Wales)to discuss the different programs, competitions, history etc within individual sports.Garrie 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, I am sure there would be multiple independent sources to justify such a series of articles. School level sports (overall) does generate significant media coverage and is much of the business of departments of Sport and Recreation across the country.Garrie 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am happy to collaborate on this with whoever tackles the merge job.Garrie 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All, surely this belongs on a website run by this league, and not in Wikipedia. Lankiveil 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
 * It's not a "league" - it's several different organisations' sport results. They're not available on "a website" either (but are available in printed form). JRG 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The results for the different competitions would still be better hosted on those organisations own websites rather than Wikipedia (an encyclopaedia) acting as their archivist. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. -- Mattinbgn/talk 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is High School sport. The fact that the schools charge $10,000 plus in school fees doesn't make it any more notable than any other high school sport. -- Mattinbgn/talk 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed in full. Also some question about copyright, the organisation may derive financial benefit from selling old yearbooks or result books or whatever and we may actually be violating that. It should really be on a Wikia or on a private website so that those who are interested in private school sports can have a shrine to them, a discussion forum, maybe even competitions/quizzes and stuff. Orderinchaos 13:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Merge - the compromise position adopted by John Vandenburg, which Garrie has agreed to work on is a sensible one. The best outcome to this debate is putting the information in a sensible form which is verifiable and concise. JRG 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge - All these types of sports awards were originally on their parent pages, but were hived off due to the fact that the size of the original pages were becoming too great. If the consensus is to merge, (which I hope it is rather then dump all together), then I am happy to undertake the merge to appropriate pages. It must be noted that most of this information does not appear on any web one or two web sites, but is scattered everywhere and sometimes, no where. Contributors have made valuable contributions and have sought this information from various places, and I for one wish to thank them for that amazing work. I wish this information was available on their respective web sites (most don’t have a dedicated web site) but its not, and this is thought to be the best place to summaries the sporting endeavors of our independent schools. Steve Stefan 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So what is the final decision on all these pages, considering others have been deleted and not merged as suggested? Steve Stefan 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.