Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Warrane Oval


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

North Warrane Oval

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of the article doesn't appear notable. I can't find anything else apart from being a Council sports oval with a public toilet. Bleakcomb (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is websites referring to sporting venues in Tasmania, City of Clarence and Warrane that refer to other sporting venues in the area. e.g. Wentworth Park

The inclusion of every one in existence is notable and explanation as of who the Tenenants are.

Rugby Union is a National Sport. This is the Venue associated with that sport and this is the Highest level in this state. And it is the only Rugby Venue on the Eastern Shore.

I will include additional references to improve the notablility of this topic.

What are you looking for ? more history ?

I can quickly search for ovals listed in wikipedia with far less information on them.

Should these pages be considered for deletion also ?

It is a Licenced Clubrooms that operates up to 5 days per week.

Has the changes made, changed your opinion including articles about future development and news coverage. Mmunji1 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Warrane, Tasmania, after cutting out most of the content which is not encyclopedic. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the content is not encyclopedic ?

Do you mean the added information about proposed improvements? This I added to make it more notable and have seen as in bellerive ovals propose futur lighting systems.

Yes maybe the Warrane Article could be enhanced. I disagee that it should be merged and this be removed as it is a seperate article about a sporting ground. eg the bellerive oval is not just in bellerive Mmunji1 (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is not encyclopedic? Where do I start -
 * "The Rugby Club leases an area of land adjacent to the oval where they have their licenced clubrooms. (There are only 209 Licenced Clubs in the State of Tasmania.)". Most clubs have bars - it is not notable.
 * "The venue is available to host functions on the licensed premises". - ditto
 * The Street address - we are not a directory.
 * "Two Cricket Nets are located at one end of the Oval". Every cricket ground has nets.
 * "Separate change rooms including showers are available at the ground. A separate public toilet also exists." What club does not? I could go on. This article should be cut back and merged. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the responses of Bduke. Specifically, the core issue is that the article must establish the notability of the subject in a fairly obvious way. The article as it stands doesn't do that and I can't find sources that would lead me to believe that anyone could. You may have that information and if you do, add it to the article. If something important happened there (not down the road or at Bellerive) or if there is a significant and interesting history, that would be good - all backed by reference to sources. If you need more time, outline a rough plan of the information with some clues to the reliable third party sources that you would use to support the statements in the article with a priority to establish its notability and put it on the article talk page. If you do add to the article talk in relation to this nomination, please leave a brief note to that effect here as well.

A note on the references you added. The first one relates to licensed clubs in Tasmania, not the subject of the article. It doesn't directly mention the club at the oval, either. The other two references refer to sources that only mention the subject of the article in passing. Also the Council website is not quite third-party as they own the oval.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The statements regarding the future proposals for development are not prime information for inclusion in an article and certainly don't add to its notability. Also the source states that the hoped for development is adjacent to the oval, not the oval itself. Sorry (:-(   Bleakcomb (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Exactly the same material was added to the Warrane, Tasmania article. I have trimmed it back and included the oval pic. I tried to find any online references for the oval (or Warrane), but I had no success.  florrie  07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination - WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the notability expectations as described at Notability (local interests). WWGB (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I would say merge but the information already seems to be at Warrane, Tasmania. Orderinchaos
 * Redirect to North Warrane, there is nothing worth merging, but I can see the merit in retaining a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2009 (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.