Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian rules football families


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Australian rules football families

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:DIRECTORY ("a repository of loosely associated topics") and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE (a list of families without context or basis for notability). Aspirex (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment; there are a large number of similar articles,
 * List of family relations in American football
 * List of association football families
 * List of professional sports families
 * List of boxing families
 * List of chess families
 * List of International cricket families
 * List of second-generation Major League Baseball players
 * List of second-generation National Basketball Association players
 * List of family relations in the NHL
 * List of family relations in rugby league
 * List of international rugby union families
 * Are you intending to nominate them all for deletion? I know this is OTHERSTUFF, but I don't see the point of deleting just this one. The Australian football one is no different in principle from the others as far as I can see.  They should therefore be discussed as a group.  That's not to say I am necessarily in favour of deleting. I'm still thinking about that. The list does have the advantage of being completely objective and, at least in priciple, fully verifiable. SpinningSpark 19:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think this is a "collection of loosely associated topics" or is a "list of families without context or basis for notability." The topic is very specific, and everyone on the list is notable. Passes WP:NLIST. SportingFlyer  talk  07:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having slept on it, keep. SpinningSpark</b> 10:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite specifically defined and finite in scope.  Likely search topic / topic of interest.  People listed are notable.  Ditto for the OTHERSTUFF too.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. A lot has been written about family connections in football. There is even a recruiting rule based on family connection and that increases the media coverage. The current format may not be the best way to cover this topic but the concept of football families is definitely notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is highly relevant to Australian rules football and is a large component of the games fabric. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep WP:NOTGENEALOGY Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. might be relevant. As noted pages like this are generally kept, and seem reasonable for a sports almanac. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.