Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dulwich Hill FC


 * 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. I fail to see evidence that playing in the NSW Super League confers notability on a club. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dulwich Hill FC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NTEST and WP:GNG. an amateur club that plays in 4th tier Australian league. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable team, fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Club played in the NSW Super League (second-highest state level) and most clubs there have articles. Also, 72 mentions on Ozfootball. The club is at least of historic interest. Arguably, the wording of the article needs some improvement. OAlexander (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oz football is not an independent source. Club lacks third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ozfootball not an independent source? Interesting statement. Similar to a statement on your user page referring to Sydney Morning Herald since 1919 facsimiles being available on Google; this is correct, but the Google newspaper archive is practically not searchable, either due to poor OCR, or shoddy transformation of OCR results into a database.
 * Back to the point: why note somebody make it short and swift and propose deletion of the article NSW Super League as a not relevant league. Once this is successful, all clubs that did not make it beyond it should be quasi automatically irrelevant for WP purposes. This spares us bumming around if in one or the other case "notoriety" is sufficiently documented or not. This will turn into a quality control issues if NSW Super League survives. OAlexander (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ozfootball would not be regarded as a third party source under WP:RS, the site even states it is made by soccer fans. has the dulwich hill club been reported significantly in mainstream press? LibStar (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Um...wait, what? "made by soccer fans" does not mean that a source is "not a third party source"; that statement is utterly nonsensical. It may not be a reliable source but it is not a primary source. (The seemingly increasing misunderstandings of what Wikipedia means by "primary source" and "secondary/third-party source", among long-term editors no less, are starting to become concerning.) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant not an independent source. A site made by soccer fans would of course include coverge of soccer clubs. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ::Sports publications tend to be made by people that are interested in sports, as political publications are made by people with a cursory interest there. Ozfootball is the standard of historical record that is available for Australian association football. If the league is relevant, so should be its members. The scope of my co-operation here is so, that I also contribute to Australian football - notably not to A-League relate topics - as I get to it. It is not so, that I am now going to trawl around to find finer points in support for this article, just because some are going wild about it. I have got something like wider interests and a life. I deem the topic relevant and sufficiently of historic interest, also in more general terms such as in immigration and related contexts.  In spirit I am an exclusionist, but the problem is at the control of new entries: I hate nigh meaningless articles coming in as stubs - thereof are enough around - and omitting important information on the topic. And most of these will remain stubs, as there is not enough manpower. The article here could be better, but for the purpose of it provides sufficient information. I would be glad, if I could now go on about more productive issues, rather than playing savious r here for the sake of it. Australian soccer has the problem that even on top level it is - I speak outside of WP - poorly documented and often very difficult to research. Characters of the "Simpsons" of-course have no such problems. I remain of the opinion, that Australian third division team is relevant in an encyclopaedia of the scope of WP, notwithstanding how thoroughly it is researched in this point and time. Again, my suggestion to propose the deletion of the Super League article: if the members are not relevant it can be doffed with a short paragraph in an overview article. OAlexander (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - former membership in a league like NSW Super League seems a reasonable enough given the lack of national level cup competitions in a nation with the geographic spread of Australia. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I wish to annotate, that the NSW Football association considers the Super League as historic extension of the first division, which before the introduction of the National Soccer League was a top tier in Australian football (http://www2.soccernsw.com/index.php?id=77). OAlexander (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - clubs competing below the second level in Australia will struggle to get any meaningful coverage in reliable sources. Judging by the news coverage I can find, the club seems to get more coverage for the state of its pitch than anything else. Hack (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:NOTTEMP. Club previously played in the NSW Super League which it seems is enough for a club to be considered notable. Had they not and were they being judged instead on their current standings then I don't think that would be sufficient. But at several points in their 46-year history (including last year) the club has competed at a fairly high level where almost every club is blue-linked. Plug "Super League" and "Dulwich Hill" into Google and you get plenty of state and national media coverage about the club, various players and matches against other clubs. Lots of passing references there but it's enough for me. Stalwart 111  07:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Gets a few hits on Google from sources close to the subject such as the state football federation and on Fox Sports Pulse, a stats site used by Football NSW. Searching Fairfax News Store, Factiva and Ebsco's Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, the only serious coverage in state or national media is passing references to former players and a controversy over their home ground which doesn't deal with the club in any serious detail. Hack (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - relevant as member of NSW Super League, which by Football NSW is carried as extension of former NSW Division 1, formerly a top tier in Australian football until. Currently third tier, which however should be relevant in a country with size and footballing standing of Australia. If NSW Super League membership does not infer relevance, all article of clubs that did not make it beyond it should be deleted by definition, and article NSW Super League ought to be deleted too (equitability). 72 times mentioned on Ozfootball Net, the leading reference of Australian football history. To boot, relevant for Southern European migration, here from Madeira, to Australia. More than ten links from articles within WP.  OAlexander (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you cannot !vote twice. 72 mentions in ozfootball does not establish notability. Needs coverage in sources independent of football. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is so much that sources need to be provided that are removed from football, merely that they must be significant and reliable, wherever they are. The results that OzFootball seem to pull back seem to me to be nothing more than stats, and do nothing to confirm GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also number of pages linking to this article is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It plays a role. I have read that. I am not that well with the abbreviations. OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What Ozfootball is only atats is concerned, a great deal of articles here are practically only stats. Many people are to busy with filling out infoboxes and pasting flagicons for more. OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Hack, no indication that the club has played in a national competition, so fails WP:FOOTYN. Keep arguments here, particularly from semm very much along the line of WP:INTERESTING / WP:ILIKEIT / WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  notes that there are plenty of google results, but to me. most of these appear to be WP:ROUTINE mantch reports and WP:PRIMARY articles. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true - as I said, "lots of passing references". I think the claim to notability here is that the club competed in the NSW Super League. Were they competing in that league now I don't think we would be having this conversation. Playing in that league almost guarantees significant coverage in reliable sources, even if it can't be found online. During regular seasons they appear on the backs of myriad regional papers covering this game and that. It's unrealistic to expect that other clubs playing at that level would have received such coverage but this one didn't. I also think it's a bit silly that this would become one of the only clubs to have played at that level to be red-linked. Stalwart 111  00:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:AUD, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Hack (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and if we were talking about coverage in local community newsletters I would agree with you. We're talking about regional papers and some major metropolitan papers. Papers like the Sun Herald and Sunday Telegraph, for example, regularly cover secondary leagues (soccer and rugby league). But the coverage wasn't actually my point. I believe the club is notable for having played at that level, as most of the others seem to be for having played at that level. Stalwart 111  02:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what level they play, if they haven't been the subject of significant coverage, they shouldn't have an article. Where is the proof that the club is notable? Hack (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the same premise as WP:NFOOTY - a player need not have been the subject significant coverage because there is a general acceptance that at that level, the competition you play in and the team you play for will have received sufficient coverage so that individual player articles are justified, even if the directly-relevant coverage is only an occasional passing mention in coverage of the league or the team. The same could undoubtedly be said for almost every other club in this league. Stalwart 111  03:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Players meeting WP:NFOOTY are generally presumed to meet WP:GNG although there are precedents for players having articles deleted because there is no proof of meeting WP:GNG. There is no equivalent guideline or policy for clubs - they must meet WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's partially covered at WP:FOOTYN but I suppose my suggestion is that we apply WP:COMMONSENSE more than anything else. By deleting the article the club would become one of only a couple of clubs to have played in the NSW Super League without an article here. The rest seemingly have articles because of a presumption of notability not dissimilar to the one I outlined above. I strongly doubt many of the clubs at the same level would have any more coverage than this one (having created Northern Tigers FC myself as part of a red link reduction effort I can guarantee a similar situation there). If the prevailing view is that such clubs aren't presumed to be notable, I can live with that. But it seems disingenuous to delete one on that basis, creating a gap for readers, while the others (including the one I started) remain. For the record, if that is the consensus then I'd be happy for that one to be deleted also. Few, if any, of those clubs likely meet the criteria at WP:FOOTYN. My aim here is consistency of application rather than some new consensus. Stalwart 111  04:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not get too carried away with FOOTYN, it's generally agreed not to be in the best shape for notability discussions, and in this instnace, no club in this league could meeti t as it is not a national league. I would concentrate on the main issue here which is that there is a lack of significant reliable coverage outside of routine match reporting and local newspapers. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * When English fourth tier players with six matches there, such as Callum O'Dowda and Craig Lynch, are considered relevant for the inclusion here, without having accrued any additional notoriety but merely by inference of playing for the club, then I am more than sure that Oz third division clubs are relevant without specific individual notoriety, but for their membership in the third tier.


 * This aside, the hole argument here seems to me another expression of the talibanisation of WP where little acknowledgement is received for writing decent articles. Then the discussions about application of rules in whichever way become the only way of interacting with fellow editors. A bit like meetings in dysfunctional office environments. Some may even think, harsh application is way up on some perceived career ladder. It is an outcome of the structure.


 * I find the whole discussion here fairly absurd. I found my excursion into reading Australia third tier articles informative, use educational if you want. It gave me a bit of an idea of what Australian soccer is about when we are not talking the clubs about we know everything anyway, because they are so notorious in the press. I wish the "community", whoever that is, lots of pleasure weeding out the rest of the third tier clubs if they want to do that - none of the have much "notoriety" beyond local rags. In their entirety they were very informative about the state of the world's #1 sport in Australia. I plead to retain them It would be also quite unfair to do so otherwise towards the people who saw other third division articles and felt encouraged to contribute. But humanity can be expected of only a few here. Not part of the industry. Process here remains dismal. Which is sad. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For all of those words, there is still no proof of notability. Hack (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"I find the whole discussion here fairly absurd" Wikipedia is not a collection of articles because WP:ILIKEIT. Your claims for notability have been clearly refuted. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be reasonable to rule, that Oz third division clubs are notable by definition. I and other opponents of the proposition hold this for right and reasonable. It is about the conclusive presentation of a a topic, here football in Australia which should be in the foreground in alignment with the general educational purpose underlying the WP project. @LibStar: I don't see myself refuted. Without overarching concepts of notability, like being part of a notable group, we may well end up in a myriad essentially not very helpful deletion propositions. I am not unreasonable here.OAlexander (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would it be reasonable to do so? Current consensus per WP:FOOTYN is that clubs are only inherently considered notable if they have taken part in a national league or cup competition, this club has not, so fails that consensus. Additionally, no sources have been provided beyond stat archives to show any significant level of coverage. Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

" that Oz third division clubs are notable by definition" you are inventing notability criterion to suit your preference. No notability definition under WP:N says that. Time to WP:LETGO LibStar (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to focus my attention on all kinds of discussions, but rather constructive content for users. I understand, that arguments for keep here are probably the weaker ones. On the other side I, and a couple of colleagues believe the article should be retained. I, eg., found this discussion by reading the article out of interest. It provided a service to me for which I am grateful. WP rules allow for flexibility and I suggest, positive consideration will be given here. The seemingly endless discussion here about notably destruction and not creation is unbecoming, notwithstanding who is right or wrong - and only suitable for fulltime WPedians. I do not wish to fail to add, that I have hitherto substantially contributed across several language editions and Commons. Thank you very much for the attention. OAlexander (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (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.