Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallangatta & District Football League


 * 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 to delete, which defaults to keep. Merging may not be a bad idea for some of these articles into a larger, more comprehensive (and of course, sourced) league article. Don't need AFD for that though. Keeper   76  18:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tallangatta & District Football League
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an amateur Australian Rules football league. It presents no evidence on why it or its member clubs are notable. Grahame (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages because none of then show why they are notable:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is ample coverage in The Border Mail, these local football clubs are often the biggest and most prominent organisations in these towns and these clubs are often over 100 years old. If they need improving, then let them be improved rather than delete them. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment" I've no doubt that the The Border Mail regularly reports on their activities, I suspect that evidence of things that they have done are notable would be harder to find.--Grahame (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All amateur football clubs well below AFL standard in a provincial and non-notable league. It's hard to envisage genuine notability of any of these clubs, apart from their longevity. If they have indeed made a substantial impact on their home towns, then such detail could be included in their home town's article. Murtoa (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is nothing in WP:ORG requiring that sports clubs be either professional or at national standard, and indeed there are hundreds of articles on minor and amateur teams and leagues. Is there amateur play in Australian football at a higher level?    RGTraynor  17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: yes, non-commercial organizations can be included if notable, but "organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found".--Grahame (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. The article was tagged, and reliable references were requested 5 months ago. Nobody has been able to provide any. Nothing in the article can be verified. Delete! -- Lester  03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability. Of course it would be featured in the Border Mail but apart from that theres nothing, no one can provide reliable references to improve the pages as Lester said and all of it would just be original research.  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: the league (Tallangatta now has the external references added and templates as do most other country leagues). If a country town is notable then its footy team and league is (particularly for those who live there). Anything about the individual teams can be included in the town article, but an article on the league is required for navigation if nothing else. Delete the individual clubs, not well-written, never will be and not much to say. (Epistemos (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Keep for all articles for which verifiable secondary sources can be found after some effort has been made to find relevant sources. After this search, individual non-notable clubs can either be merged to the League article, or with their own town article. However, I would be very surprised if there were not many secondary references for each club, especially some of the older clubs that date back more than 100 years. I am poorly versed in sports history, but I suspect there are secondary references in published historical sources for many of the club articles. As said before, most clubs would also be substantively reported on by local papers, so would be very surprised if they are deleted because no verifiable secondary sources could be found. Amateur Footie clubs are often locally important, even notable, social organisations and football league games are important social events in country Australia. This is reflected by the coverage in the sports journalism in country newspapers. I am keenly aware we need to take into account from WP:Notability the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.--Takver (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on Secondary Sources; I suggest that More Than a Game: An Unauthorized History of Australian Rules Football By Rob Hess, Bob Stewart, Contributor Martin Flanagan, Published by Melbourne University Press, 1998 ISBN 0522847722, ISBN 9780522847727, 304 pages might be useful as a secondary source if it details the country leagues and clubs. I also did a check for sources for one of the above clubs picked at random - Rutherglen Football club - Google News found 3 news articles, the Border Mail had an additional two articles. I am sure there are other local papers which would also provide secondary sources. It just needs someone to add some of these related secondary sources to each article to satisfy the WP:N guideline.--Takver (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent and non-local sources. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (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.