Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

The history is: there was a no consensus AfD for the Wren Trophy in mid-2015, into which did a late bundling of Harry Collier Trophy and Gavin Brown Award. More recently, there was an AfD for just the Gavin Brown Award, and the decision was delete. I am now re-opening the discussion for the other two awards.

Essentially, I think most people would agree that intuitively from a football perspective, the Collier and Wren awards (for best first year player at Collingwood and best reserves player at Collingwood) are more notable than the Gavin Brown Award (for most one-percenters at Collingwood); but when viewing it from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, they are equally non-notable – in that they both fail WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. This is because, like the Gavin Brown Award, both the Wren and Collier awards receive only passing mentions in references which are primarily about the Copeland Trophy; i.e. there is no significant coverage, to wit there are no independent references which "address the topic directly and in detail" or go beyong a "trivial mention". These are probably stronger candidates for a merger than was the Gavin Brown Award, but I still think the content is suitably esoteric to be deleted from Wikipedia. Aspirex (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy is for the best&fairest award for the Collingwood Reserves (VFL), which play in a different league, and has gotten coverage in the VFL website too. --SuperJew (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also there are separate articles talking only about the Joseph Wren Trophy and its winners. For examples:, ,

--SuperJew (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: none of those example references are independent (all are Collingwood Football Club web pages) Aspirex (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Articles for deletion/Gavin Brown Award. None of these articles have been shown to have significant coverage in independent sources. Note that the Collingwood and VFL websites are not independent. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Collingwood website is run by the AFL and BigPond. VFL website is run by Fox Sports. --SuperJew (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. But the point is the VFL website is not independent because Collingwood has a team playing in the VFL. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I am in agreement that these two awards have marginally more notability than the Gavin Brown Award (from a football point of view), however, from a Wikipedia standpoint these awards do not receive independent coverage, whereby the Collingwood website and VFL website are not independent per "independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, the subject's website is not considered independent." and fails to meet WP:GNG, so I am in agreement with Aspirex's argument. Also per my statement in Articles for deletion/Gavin Brown Award; there is a long list of awards at all club B&F nights and all of these awards do not need their own article. Flickerd (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge to Collingwood Football Club - I agree with the statement that the awards fail the GNG, so if there is no other alternative, this should be deleted. However, from the perspective of it relation to Collingwood itself, it seems that a number of the recipients of the awards meet GNG, and the material is sourced (albeit to the club).  Would it not make sense to simply create subsections in the Collingwood article for each of these trophies? MSJapan (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My personal taste is that it would dilute more valuable content if it were merged, but I'm not outright opposed to that outcome. I think merging to Copeland Trophy would be more appropriate than the Collingwood page. Aspirex (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2016 (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.