Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorn best and fairest (AFL Women's)


 * 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 merge to Hawthorn Football Club (AFL Women's). Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hawthorn best and fairest (AFL Women's)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks all notability, only mentioned in sources from the club itself and one short paragraph on a specialized website. Fram (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Awards,  and Australia. Fram (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Numerically, there are more editors advocating Keep but others suggest sources are not independent enough to count. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. Ample sources for this new club. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * care to provide them? The AfD isn't even for a "club", but for a club award... Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge - Merge into Hawthorn Football Club (AFL Women's). This award hasn't had enough substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG on its own. ProofRobust  09:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's a common team award for a new team of an established club in the Women's league. Every team seems to have an article for an award like this, so this one will grow as the team plays more seasons. --Scott Davis Talk 12:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any policy based reason? Perhaps the others need deletion or redirecting if they are similar, perhaps they have better sourcing. It's hardly a reason to keep this one because there are other articles though. Fram (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I just checked and redirected both Gold Coast Club Champion (AFL Women's) and North Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) as neither had any independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Independent sources are for notability; an article should be sourced from authoritative sources. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I redirected it. I didn't claim the facts in the article were incorrect (= authoritative sources), I redirected it because neither had "independent" sources and thus didn't show any notability. Your input in this AfD is really not helpful. Fram (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Women's sports coverage is increasingly tough to find beyond team and league coverage as the print media implosion continues unabated, with list articles such as these an encyclopedic resource. Note: The redirects made above have been reversed with additional references located. Storm machine (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hawthorn Football Club (AFL Women's). As much as I want there to be equal coverage of men's and women's sport on Wikipedia, there just isn't the coverage for this article to pass WP:GNG right now. I think there's a good chance it will get that coverage with time, but we have to base a decision on the state of the coverage now not look at a hypothetical future. For now it's best to include the information at the club's article and then it can be restored as its own article once the coverage exists. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are currently four sources at the article – the club website, which has a degree of independence as the media is created by a media team rather than the club itself, and three independent sources (including an Irish newspaper). How many do you want? 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  06:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)~
 * You don't get "a degree of independence" by letting some agency write or maintain your club website, it still is a purely non-independent source. Similarly, the Womens AfL site is not independent either, the organiser of a competition reporting on the teams in that competition is by definition not independent. While the other two are independent, you have this which is a short paragrah in a longer list, and seems to be some citizen-produced website, not a professional journalistic source (the hosting is professional, but the contents are provided by whoever wishes to contribute); and this, which has one sentence about it. I realise that the sheer number of editors from the Australian Football project will probably lead to this being kept anyway, but the reasons provided are extremely dubious. Fram (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * afl.com.au and women.afl are independent sources; the content is produced by AFL Media, not the AFL itself. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  12:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And the inaugural award for most unconvincing argument goes to... Seriously? "AFL Media is an Australian sports media company operated by the Australian Football League" The official website of the WAFL is somehow an "independent source" because they have put the content creation in a subdivision housed in the same building as the AFL itself? Fram (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep has enough significant sources, including a newspaper from Ireland (about an Australian local club award). How much more independent can you get? --SuperJew (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge would be my view. The article is a statement of the award's existence, with WP:ROUTINE sources only to state its sole winner - the routineness issue is more pressing than the independence issue for me. There's nothing I can find yet that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV for the award to be notable for a standalone article. (For award articles, my rule of thumb is that if the article doesn't stand alone as notable without its list of winners, then it's not notable enough for its own article.) Aspirex (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge either to Hawthorn Football Club (AFL Women's) or perhaps make an article on the concept of an AFL Women's club best and fairest and merge all non-notable AFLW best and fairest awards there. I disagree with Fram on the independence of AFL Media, but it's a moot point, its coverage is not significant enough anyway. I agree with some advocates to keep that the award will likely become notable in the future, but it is not notable at the moment. – Teratix ₵ 06:23, 29 November 2022 (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.