Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Coast Heat F.C.


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus for deletion. If the article should be redirected, that should be discussed on its talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

East Coast Heat F.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable sports team. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Hack (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep - They are runners up in the F-League in 2012 and have a number of futsalroos players in their side. The very fact that they play at the highest level of futsal in Australia should be notable in itself. The article perhaps needs improvement but not deletion.Simione001 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment. There is no in-depth coverage of this club at all in reliable sources. Searches for this club yielded the following result - Fairfax News Store - nil; Factiva - two results mentioning that particular players play for this club; Ebsco Australia - one result showing the club in a fixture list; Google News - nil. National level clubs in outdoor football are usually given a free pass because they usually have had serious coverage but this does not apply to futsal clubs. Hack (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Indeed. Even a look at the club's own web page reveals a complete lack of any in-depth information. It's more of a holding page. Except, of course, for some video clips which reveal a complete absence of any spectators. Using the "competes at the highest level of a national league" could equally well be used to justify inclusion of tiddlywinks clubs or computer gamers. H6PAYH (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 Strong Delete Futsal has no visibility here in Australia and I had not even heard of it until seeing this article for deletion. The club itself was founded only in 2012 so has hardly had time to become notable. I would suggest there is no need for individual Australian futsal clubs to have Wikipedia pages unless/until the sport gets some level of independent coverage. H6PAYH (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't realise that there are degrees of strength in regards to deletion. Either delete or not.Simione001 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever H6PAYH (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - plays in the top division of their sport in their country - article needs improving/expanding, not deleting. GiantSnowman 12:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to F-League. The fact that a team plays at the "highest level" (which apparently incorporates teams from only three of Australia's eight states and territories, but perhaps that's beside the point) of a particular sport in a particular country doesn't mean squat if that particular sport has very little presence or generates very little attention in that particular country, as is the case with futsal in Australia. Cricket probably has some presence in Kyrgyzstan, but that doesn't mean the local teams suddenly get Wikipedia articles. The search term "East Coast Heat" returns zero hits on Google News, which can hardly be said to constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". However, "East Coast Heat" is probably a plausible search term, so we might as redirect to the league page – our readers can basically gain the same amount of information from the list of teams which already exists there.  IgnorantArmies  13:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - per GS, team is playing in top level league in its country, so passes WP:FOOTYN. Concede there are potential GNG issues here though, but want to see the article expanded if possible, as per current consensus at WP:FOOTY on clubs. Fenix down (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)`
 * Comment. This is not a football club, this is a futsal club. A futsal club that blatantly fails WP:GNG, which is a guideline, unlike WP:FOOTYN which is an essay. Hack (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't go that far. Futsal and football are very similar. Futsal is a variant of association football (soccer).Simione001 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. My point is that WP:FOOTYN is intended for outdoor football and reflects the fact that national-level clubs in that form of football almost universally get enough coverage to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' - FOOTYN makes no such claim to ONLY be concerned with 11-a-side. Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're arguing about semantics. How exactly does this club meet WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have agreed that the article needs improving.Simione001 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Arguing that futsal is inherently the same as football rather knocks a hole in the argument that this club plays in the top league. The top football league in Australia is the A League - this is beyond dispute. By arguing to consider futsal and football using the same criteria, teams playing variants of football in leagues other than the A League would not be playing in the top league. H6PAYH (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody said it was the same, it's a variation of assocaition football. Futsal clubs are not eligible to play in the a-league for that reason lol.Simione001 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. But your argument is that futsal is a variation of football, therefore being successful at futsal should be seen as equivalent to being successful at football. This is simply not the case. A futsal club is not notable because futsal is not notable. It receives no coverage; it does not even seem to generate its own web presence. It is a pastime that is probably very enjoyable, but it is not commercial, outward-facing or notable in any way. Most people have never heard of futsal whcih might justify a Wikipedia page to explain what futsal is, but it makes it impossible to argue that teams participating in futsal are notable. In this case, you've got a team that was founded less than two years ago and zero public recognition. I can see only one person arguing for the retention of the page - makes me wonder whether it is being considered with a neutral point of view. H6PAYH (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to F-League, and that's being generous. Futsal is not a widely known sport in Australia, and there is almost zero coverage of this team to establish notability and verifiability.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:02, 16 February 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.


 * Keep. Clearly notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)