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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darebin United SC[edit]

Darebin United SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has vastly improved its content and referencing by deleting unimportant information and including inline citations. The club has rising profile and has attracted significant and regular coverage at community and national level by reliable independent sources. Examples of coverage include:

• Featured a:rticle in national newspaper^[1]
• Featured pieces by independent soccer websites^[2]
• Regular mentions in local newspapers^[3]
• Regular mentions in ethnic community newspapers (including nickname)^[4] 09:58, 29 June 2017 (AEDT)

• Keep Article has been vastly improved since nomination; at this point it's clear it passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about closing the discussion and removing the notices on the article's entry? How do we know if we've reached consensus? 09:58, 30 June 2017 (AEDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.18.10 (talk)

Uh? One article from a local paper has been added. How does that and the couple of paragraphs in The Sydney Morning Herald prove that the article passes WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the club does not have an exemplary amount of coverage but it still has enough to pass our standards. Also per the first keep !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article in the Sydney Morning Herald was published nationally and was about the club's participation in the FFA Cup - a national competition. WP:N for soccer clubs is passed when they have played in a national cup^[1]. The article passes the standards to be kept. 21:19, 2 July 2017 (AEDT)

• Keep - meets our notability requirements. GiantSnowman 06:54, 3 July 2017 (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.