Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Football International (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After two AfDs in close succession with a total of four relists, there is no consensus to Delete, and although an acknowledged borderline case, there has been an increasing lean to Keep. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Australian Football International
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy renomination after the first AfD failed due to low participation. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Currently has seven references: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are passing mentions and/or focus more on Footy 9s rather than its parent organisation. 3 is more in-depth but is just a run-of-the-mill low-circulation local newspaper article profiling a local. 7 is borderline but makes such a blatant factual error in the first sentence (claiming Footy 9s is an AFL expansion format - it's not at all affiliated with the league) I'm doubtful it's reliable. – Teratix ₵ 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As in the previous AfD discussion, I think there is enough here to scrape WP:GNG and given the existence of both Footy 9s and Australian Football Harmony Cup it makes sense to have an article on the organisation. Melcous (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - enough to just meet GNG. This AfD should probably be closed purely for the reason that it is improper to relist straight away - the closing administrator relisted the discussion twice so more than an adequate opportunity was given for others to participate. Bookscale (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I specifically consulted with the closing administrator prior to opening this to check whether speedy renomination was appropriate. Keep !voters so far have not identified precisely which sources constitute a GNG pass. – Teratix ₵ 05:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Teratix and Melcous.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Teratix hasn't voted for keeping the article? Bookscale (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I must have been tired, I meant to say you Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for clarifying. Bookscale (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No evidence that there is a pass of GNG here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 02:35, 8 December 2019 (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.