Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigieburn Football Club


 * 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. Consensus indicates no evidence of notability TravellingCari  04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Craigieburn Football Club

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

This is an amateur suburban Australian rules football club. It makes no claims to notability and has no independent sources. Grahame (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. The onus is really on the author to demonstrate to us that the football club is notable. As the article is self-referenced back to the football team's own website, there has been no demonstration of notability. Also, other clubs in this Essendon league, such as Airport West have very similar articles which in my opinion should also be AfD's. -- Lester  09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe then we should AFD all the clubs in the Essendon League if it meets the same criteria instead of voting one by one?  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I support this idea although I'm unfamiliar with how easily bulk deletions can be managed. It could be the start of something rather larger - casual scanning shows other amateur Aussie Rules leagues, and indeed amateur football/soccer leagues containing clubs with articles that almost certainly wouldn't survive similar scrutiny. Murtoa (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator: Discussion awaiting input from an infrequent contributor, User:Uselesstrivia. Ottre (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, the club doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I'm not sure if there's any other criterion that might apply here. I don't see any good sources either by the way. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, local amateur club with no coverage in reliable sources - definitely seems to fail WP:N. It's a good point about this article being far from unique, though - assuming I'm not missing something, following this up with a bulk AfD of all the teams listed at Essendon District Football League may be a good idea, as they all seem to suffer from the same problem upon cursory inspection. Indeed, there might even be a much larger number of no-coverage non-notable amateur teams lurking around on Wikipedia, it may overall be an idea to come up with something like a Notability (sports teams) guideline in the future if there's a lot of this around, but WP:ORG seems to cover it fine as far as I can see: no substantial reliable source coverage, no article. In any case, my waffling aside - taken individually, this team does not appear to be notable. ~ mazca  t 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not appear to be generally notable. Would encourage an AFD of all of the teams in this league. I also agree that a notability guideline needs to be implemented, as I can think of any number of unclear situations. Brilliantine (talk) 02:21, 7 September 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.