Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renmark Rovers FC (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   no consensus. –MuZemike 00:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Renmark Rovers FC
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

speedy renomination due to last AfD. fails WP:ORG nothing in gnews. the article is basically a website for followers of the club, which play in a low level league in South Australia. it is not like the Australian Football League or VFL. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have restructured the article and added references.  The club is 100 years old and boasts a highly successful alumnus, which satisifies notability for me.   Movementarian (Talk) 09:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry it may well be 100 years old but without any significant coverage of the club, it fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." I have provided four articles from ABC about the club, which satisfies WP:GNG.  Movementarian (Talk) 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They are :
 * ABC Radio broadcasts the Riverland Football League Grand Final - is about the Riverland Football League Grand Final and not the club.
 * Renmark Rovers reign is a LOCAL paper piece about a match the club won, given a club was going to win if the Loxton Tigers had won it would have been about them.
 * Renmark Rovers celebrates 100 years is about the club being 100 years old
 * Modra and Riccuito prepare for battle is not about the club.
 * So only one is what you could call "Significant coverage" (the one on the club being 100 years old). So still fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Codf1977 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out earlier, significant coverage does not refer to quantity, but rather that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." Movementarian (Talk) 12:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mistook you. The Grand Final article is about the grand final that the club took part in, the fourth article i=links the player to the club in his early years and his final game.  I think it meets the requirement, just barely which is enough for me.  Movementarian (Talk) 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CLUB since "the scope of their activities is [NOT] national or international in scale" as required. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that WP:CLUB was intended to cover sports teams. WP:ORG makes no mention of sports teams anywhere in the narrative.  I haven't found a guideline that specifically covers the notability of teams.  {{WP:SPORT]] is inder development, but does not address teams yet, so I will base my rebuttal on precedent.  Single-A baseball teams are included in Wikipedia and they get marginal regional coverage in most places and almost never get national coverage.  This team is no different than that.  They are a professional team in a lower ranked division of Australian football.  Movementarian (Talk) 06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So, Renmark Rovers Football Club is not covered by WP:CLUB? That's a perplexing argument. And on what basis is Renmark Rovers a "professional team"? Do you mean every player is paid a salary by the club, and plays football as a fulltime career? WWGB (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not perplexing. You are over-simplifying.  From reading WP:CLUB it seems clear that it is intended for things like local chapters of national clubs (i.e. [[Rotary Club).  I can't answer your second question, as I am not familiar with the ins and outs of lower level (or senior level for that matter) Australian football.  All I can say is that the article now meets WP:GNG based on the following: They compete in a notable league (Riverland Football League) and they have press coverage from multiple reliable sources.  It's not going to hurt my feelings if it goes, I just happen to think that it is at least as notable as minor league baseball teams.  Movementarian (Talk) 12:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The club's notability has been established through it's age, it's coverage both in terms of region (It represents the largest city in the Riverland area of South Australia) and media (The local paper - the Murray Pioneer - is one of the major regional papers in the state), and the fact that a highly recognisable player and personality played for them, and in fact started his footballing life with them IIRC puts this over the line. It is a semi professional club, and to take out clubs simply because it's not fully professional would create a dangerous precedent that would remove all of the local level of football in Australia. The game at the local level is far more notable than the lower reaches of English soccer or the same level of American baseball. AFL-Cool  13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The age of the club is the only thing that to me lends an air of notability to the club, most of the rest of the points you make are based on WP:INHERITED notability. As for the press coverage, it lacks the Significant nature that you need to conclude notability. Codf1977 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant does not mean amount or weight according to the definition in WP:GNG. Movementarian (Talk) 13:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And not only that, there is no claim in my comments that violates WP:INHERITED. I find that comment highly insulting. AFL-Cool  12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shi  meru  06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't buy the argument that the article about the 2009 Grand Final is inadmissible as demonstration of notability. How do you figure? Premise: The article is about the winner of the match. Fact: Remark Football Club is the winner of the match. Conclusion: The article is about Renmark Football Club. One article with significant coverage and several with trivial coverage Several articles with more than trivial coverage is enough to satisfy the GNG. I'm quite sure there would be more articles available at microfiche databases, but I'm not about to go find them. A history of the Renmark area might be a good place to go to find a bombproof source demonstrating notability. I also disagree that sporting clubs are intended to be encompassed by WP:CLUB - even SANFL wouldn't satisfy "activity on a national scale". --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment This is somewhat borderline for a relist, but given that it's a rapid renomination, I'd rather give it some time to see whether consensus emerges, rather than just close it as no-consensus again. Shi  meru  06:17, 18 June 2010 (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.