Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moree Boomerangs


 * 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. Opinion split between keep and delete. (non-admin closure) f  e  minist  01:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Moree Boomerangs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NCORP. There's not been enough significant coverage. Note that WP:NSPORTS isn't applicable. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * delete  minor amateur sport team. LibStar (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete; per the noms rationale. Mattlore (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep.. Am I missing something? Meets WP:GNG with articles like, , . Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - GNG achieved with the links provided by the good doctor.Fleets (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a poorly written stub with no indication of notability and my understanding of the Australian league system is that this club plays at such a low level that Wikipedia notability guidelines are unlikely to be met anytime soon. I appreciate the links that User:Doctorhawkes has provided, but I'm not sure just proving the club exists is enough for it to pass GNG. If the club ever successfully applies to a higher level of amateur/semi-pro Rugby league in Australia, my view would likely change to keep and improve, but for now it's delete. Skemcraig (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, the level of the league that the club participates in is completely irrelevant, what is relevant is that there are substantial sources in multiple credible metro papers that discuss the club and its history in detail. Meets the WP:GNG and then some.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC).
 * RE: "the level of the league that the club participates in is completely irrelevant" – I've seen amateur club articles deleted for that exact rationale, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Skemcraig (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy you can cite to that effect? The relevant notability guideline that I can see is WP:ORG.  Granted, most amateur footy clubs won't have that much substantial independent coverage, but this one isn't your average amateur club for a variety of reasons that the sources listed above go into.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  00:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing here that constitutes a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being covered by those major news sources is a claim to notability. The level of the league that the club participates in is completely irrelevant. Also covered by The Australian. Enough high quality sources for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2017 (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.