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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Victory FC supporters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator; this topic fails WP:GNG, it has not received significant coverage. At the most it should be redirect to Melbourne Victory FC#Support, but even that section is full of OR and POV and needs sorting. Giant Snowman 12:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure about whether it's independently notable, but if the consensus is that this topic doesn't merit a stand-alone then there should definitely be a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems a silly idea for an article. Do we have any for the supporters of other clubs, in any sport? I suspect the article's creator wanted to tell us how wonderful the club's fans are, but naturally the article will also attract comment about the the negative aspects too. Neither perspective is neutral. In my book an article that will primarily attract non-neutral content is a bad article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do we have any for the supporters of other clubs, in any sport?" Well there's plenty in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Association football supporters..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of those are likely also non-notable, let's not fall into the trap of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, thanks for the response ChrisTheDude, but I have to agree with the Snowman, and I still feel it's a bad idea for an article. And given the massive number of articles on soccer/Association football related matters there are on Wikipedia, that's not really "plenty". HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, maybe "plenty" was overstating it a bit, I was just pointing out that yes there are indeed other articles on this sort of topic out there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (redirect if you must) - 20,000 people? I've seen more at weekend markets. They might be the biggest group of supporters in Australian football ("soccer") but they don't come close to AFL or NRL fan-bases and they simply haven't done anything to suggest any form of notability. An article about where they sit? Please! Long-established fan clubs or groups with a significant history might meet WP:ORGDEPTH but just "the fans" of an A-League club generally? Not so much. Unfortunately for them, the fans of the Western Sydney Wanderers are most likely to be collectively notable, mostly because of their coverage in reliable sources stemming from violent altercations with police, property damage and internal conflict. I don't think we should have an article about them either, but you know what I mean. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. No real indication that the supporters of the club have recieved in depth reliable coverage. A lot of the sources are just stats about attendences and WP:ROUTINE news reporting about the sort of events that happen to some degree to all groups of football fans. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are two other bigger football codes in Australia than this. The article will primarily attract excited, enthusiastic (typically unsourced) positive comment from the fans themselves, and negative comment from those pointing out the negative aspects. The only neutral content that could be justified might be numbers of attendees at games (small by comparison with other Australian sports, so not notable) and formal membership numbers for official supporter groups, and I don't know if such groups are well enough organised to be able to supply such figures. If such numbers exist, they belong in the club article, not in a separate one. This is tabloid fancruft of the worst kind. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.