Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Club Champion (AFL Women's)


 * 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 largely on the basis that participants could not agree on whether womens.afl is an independent source in this context. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

West Coast Club Champion (AFL Women's)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage of this team award to show that it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This probably does pass WP:GNG, but even so it most certainly passes WP:AFL. It is a page pertaining to the best and fairest honour for a club participating in the highest elite AFL Women's league in the world, which makes it notable. It would make no sense to delete this article despite there being 13 others of its kind that are considered notable. Doggo375 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per above. I'm hesitant to assume this nomination was done in good faith. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this coverage from The West and this coverage from womens.afl demonstrate the award meets the general notability guideline. Having said that, I disagree that WP:NAFL grants AFLW awards presumed notability; it only applies to AFLW players and coaches. There's also no basis for assuming this was anything but a good-faith AfD, especially given the paucity of information currently in the article. – Teratix ₵ 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "womens.afl" source is not independent of course, so doesn't indicate any notability. Which leaves us with only the The West Australian source, and one good source is usually not enough to pass GNG. Fram (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your basis for concluding womens.afl is not an independent source? It seems you've simply jumped to conclusions based on its name. – Teratix ₵ 01:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If that site is not the official site for the Women's AFL, then that organisation should sue them as impersonators. And if it is the official homepage of the Women's AFL, then, uh, they're not an independent source for commenting on a Women's AFL club award surely? What makes you think this is an independent source? That the award is given by a club, and not by them, doesn't make them an independent source. See WP:COISOURCE: "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting". Fram (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [I]f it is the official homepage of the Women's AFL, then, uh, they're not an independent source for commenting on a Women's AFL club award surely? No, not necessarily. Consider womens.afl's sister site AFL.com.au; prior to 2012 they were essentially the online marketing branch of the AFL, but once a proper editorial staff (AFL Media) were established the site garnered a decent reputation for independence. – Teratix ₵ 10:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They may have gotten a decent reputation for reliability, but independence is decided on a case-by-case basis; a source which may be independent for one subject isn't necessarily independent for another. That they may perhaps be reporting neutrally, even critically, doesn't make them an independent source for enwiki purposes; the facts remains that they are posting about subjects they have a direct (COI) interest in. Fram (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true that neutral reporting doesn't define an independent source, but it's strong evidence that the source is independent; after all, the entire reason that Wikipedia generally prefers independent sources over non-independent sources is that independent sources' reporting tends to be neutral, and non-independent sources' reporting tends to be biased. Anyway, what COI is womens.afl even supposed to have? I would understand if it were a club website – obviously there would be an incentive to promote its star players through coverage of the award – but that's not the case here. – Teratix ₵ 12:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is important for WP:V and WP:NPOV, not so much for WP:N. Independent sourcing is important for WP:N though: reporting by a source which has a financial or organisational interest in the subject is not evidence of notability, as it is not a disinterested party choosing to report on this subject and not another. The WAFL has an interest in having a lively website about all aspects WAFL, including players, clubs, club awards, ... It is their raison d'être, their sole purpose (not the website, but the WAFL, its sponsors and supporters, ...). Fram (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is important for WP:V and WP:NPOV, not so much for WP:N. Independent sourcing is important for WP:N though. This presumes a source's neutrality and independence are completely uncorrelated, which is not the case. The fact that womens.afl has reported on the award in a neutral fashion is strong evidence that it is an independent source. The WAFL has an interest in having a lively website about all aspects WAFL. This reasoning seems to portray the AFLW as holding full editorial control over the reporting of womens.afl. However, this does not seem to be the case; womens.afl has proven willing to run articles that are not aligned with the league's interests. Take this example from a couple of weeks ago, when the site dedicated a full article to covering a club president's criticism of a league decision. If the AFLW was completely in control of womens.afl articles, as your argument presumes, would this piece have been published? – Teratix ₵ 09:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into West_Coast_Eagles. As much as I wish this topic could have its own article (like the equivalent AFL men's award), sadly it currently lacks the coverage to achieve notability. Having said that, there is probably enough coverage now of the women's team in general that it could be split off from the men's team article, if anyone is motivated to do so. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you dismiss the coverage already provided? – Teratix ₵ 11:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Same as Fram above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:54, 5 June 2021 (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.