Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beresfield United


 * 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   delete due to failure to meet WP:N. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Beresfield United

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete non notable football team. Only 5 GHITS, all of which are incidental mentions. Not one single WP:RS specifically about the club. Mayalld (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the NewFM Division is within the highest levels of the sport in Australia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's very trivial, isn't it? The Sydney Morning Herald reference provided does not mention the Beresfield United Club at all. The local paper does, but I don't think a mention in a local paper establishes notability.-- Lester  20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This would appear to be a team in the third tier of Australian soccer. At team with semi-professional players. Seems to be as, or more, significant as a Tier 9 or Tier 10 team in England. Am I missing something? Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Comment) If it is the case, that this really is a major Australian sporting team, then the author should have no trouble finding a few major references from major independent publications to demonstrate the team's notability. The author should supply those (we shouldn't have to search for them).-- Lester  22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Article fails to demonstrate notability of this organisation.  Teams of this kind do not warrant a WP article of their own, but could be listed in an article dedicated to the sporting code or the relevant League.  The prose may be appropriate for the local community newspaper but it is not appropriate in an encyclopedia.  Dolphin51 (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ".....could be listed in an article dedicated to the sporting code or the relevant League" - the article on the league, I could understand, and any half-decent article on a league should include details of the member clubs, but when you say "listed in an article dedicated to the sporting code" surely you aren't suggesting a merge to Association football.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N - lacks of reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see what the big problem is with having this article here just because there is no mention of it in any major newspaper article. Even the bigger teams here in Australia struggle to get a spot in them. And yes the NewFM Division is one of the highes levels of football in Australia therefore this page shouldn't be deleted. If this article is to be merged, merge it with maybe the NewFM Division page or maybe make a new article 'teams in NewFM Division'? Marco (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is that Wikipedia has a policy that requires notability (WP:N), which acts as a line to define the cut-off between Things that should have articles, and things that should not. Could you clarify what level the league is at. As far as I can tell, it isn't at the top level of the sport. Rather, it is at the lowest level of semi-pro football, in a country where association football is not a major sport. Mayalld (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment True, it is the lowest level of semi-pro football. But then again it is also the 3rd/4th highest. I just have a couple of things to say... sorry.. 1. Notability sucks.. 2. If this is going to be deleted, please consider moving it. 3. There is another team in the league that has an article where they don't go on about WP:N, yes they have been in the higher league last year, but I think that Beresfield has a ex NSL player (highest league in Australia) adds to the notability of the club, doesn't it? 124.187.178.14 (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) * That was my comment Marco (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, so notability sucks. If that's what you think, try to get the policy changed. Special pleading that the article that you wrote should be exempt from policies you dislike isn't convincing. Mayalld (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet the notability guidelines.  Gtstricky Talk or C 17:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's an article on Adamstown Rosebud, and that's just as famous as this. 121.218.174.17 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Marco (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered to be a good argument. Mayalld (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (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.