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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Dragons SC[edit]

Darwin Dragons SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced stub on an apparently non notable football club. A google search throws up a few lists of clubs in the area and a few stats sites but nothing that would come close to WP:RS. There seems little hope of any more information being found to add to the article though, by all means, prove me wrong. HJMitchell You rang? 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Padres FC HJMitchell You rang? 23:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the NT Premier League would appear to be the top level of competition in the Northern Territory. Whether that makes teams at that level notable is another matter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete A Google news search of 'Darwin Dragons soccer' doesn't return any usable references ([1]) and this is a non-professional team so WP:ORG isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Football Federation Northern Territory. The premier minor league in one section of the country would probably be considered notable, but the individual teams would have to prove some type of notability that sets them apart from other clubs. Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are 8 teams in this league (Football Federation Northern Territory#2009 Premier League Teams). Why are their Wikipedia articles being picked off individually? WWGB (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 05:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Mattinbgn\^talk 05:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep. As I understand it, this team plays at what is effectively Level 3 in the Aussie league system. A team's professional status is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to notability (for example, there are hundreds of semi-pro and amateur teams in England with Wiki articles, some of which are of Featured Article standard), and seeing as there is no national cup competition to give us an easy guide to establishing notability (as there is in England), I see no reason why article for teams at this level should be deleted simply because of their level. The way I see it, this team are no less notable than a Wessex League team. Unfortunately, in order to improve this article we have to rely on news sources, and as Nick-D says there's precious little to use. I found one story about them receiving a grant, four Google News hits and a few more local news hits (search for "Darwin Dragons" -rugby) but that's about it. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I might be miss-understanding your comment a bit, but there is a national professional soccer/football competition in Australia - the A-League. This team isn't in it. Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So by that logic all non-league semi-professional English teams (most of which have articles on here) should also be deleted!? Or would you go as far as deleting all teams that don't play in the Premier League? John Sloan @ 09:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No; only teams for which sufficient references aren't available to meet the requirements set by WP:ORG like this one. 'Other stuff exists' isn't a reason to keep articles by the way. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly doesn't apply here because my reasoning for keeping the article is based on my belief that the subject is notable. See below ;) John Sloan @ 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not that it will make a difference, but just to clarify - they would technically be playing in a Level 2 league, with each top state league coming directly under the National A-League competition. I'm undecided on keeping the article or not, but leaning toward keep. I'll have a look around for some sources and come back. Camw (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bettia. GiantSnowman 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bettia as well. matt91486 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The club plays in the top league of its state. I consider that notable. John Sloan @ 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a non-professional team, in a sport which isn't the most popular in this country, in a territory so small in population that I'm not sure teams in its stage leagues in any sport would be notable (and I'm a staunch inclusionist), since they're going to be tiny non-professional teams, and thus are not going to have the reliable sources to make the article. This is a case where trying to judge it by, say, English standards, just doesn't make any sense. Rebecca (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily meets standard at which teams have been kept in the past. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it meet the standard at all, let alone easily? As I said above, I'm a particularly ardent inclusionist - and I'm not seeing notability at all. It's a local, non-professional team on which nothing useful could be said because the references aren't there; that the particular area the league represents happens to have its own parliament is neither here nor there. Rebecca (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this different that the local non-professional teams in the 12th level of English football that we consider acceptable (or is it the 10th level ...) Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously I have a stake in keeping the articles as the creator -- but unlike a recent discussion over the merit of keeping Whittlesea United, I definitely believe these team pages have a place on Wikipedia. They are clubs from the league behind the A-League in Australia. I've been pretty busy, so haven't had the time to spend on sources, but a quick Google News search finds this and this and this. Australian Matt (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "the league behind the A-League" is misleading. There is a massive difference in notability between the two levels, and where there might be a case for including one from, say, the NSW state league, the tiny Northern Territory market is a different story entirely. The writeups you linked above are just the same sort that the Canberra Times used to run on university sport when I was there - should we have article on those teams too? Rebecca (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - we should definitely have an article on University teams if they can be verified with good sources and deemed as notable. This team has its notability lie in its position as being in the top NT tier and the second tier behind the A-League. The Sunday Territorian meets WP:RS criteria. For the record - have a look at Melbourne University Rangers. Australian Matt (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Melbourne University Rangers appears a very poor example - a club that has had its entire and relatively short existence in lower amateur ranks and in my view is simply not notable. Some uni clubs may be notable due to their longevity and in some cases where they have participated (earlier in their history) at higher levels. A relevant example (in another code) would be Melbourne University Football Club. Murtoa (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Aussie Rules club is a better example - although the Rangers are now out of the provisional leagues. Australian Matt (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems the issue of whether or not the team is professional is irrelevant. I'm not in the habit of weighing in on AfDs I started- I make my opinion clear in the nomination and let the community decide its fate. However, I felt it necessary to point out my reasons, since there seems to have been a lot of focus on the professional issue. Having searched Google, I could not find any reliable, third party sources that dealt with the subject of the article in detail- as required by WP:RS and WP:N. From what I see above, there are still no such sources that deal in detail with the club- as opposed to a particular player or the league as a whole. I consider myself an inclusionist so invite people to prove me wrong! HJMitchell You rang? 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Content added I have added a reliable third party source, the Northern Territory News, that deals with the subject of the article as required by WP:RS. This deals in detail with the club, and also gives history -- the NT News article noted that the Darwin Dragons rejoined the NT Premier League in 2007. Australian Matt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete completely non-notable. A small amateur weekend club in a city of 120,000 people in a country where soccer is not one of the leading competitive sports. #2 Soccer's elite player base is built around continental European immigrants like Italians, Greeks, Balkans, etc, and Darwin doesn't have many immigrants from those parts; immigrants mostly go to big cities. There are eight teams in the city, so on avg 15,000 people per team. Not notable. Just on another note, Salisbury United is a team in my area, in the second division of suburban soccer. They should be deleted as well. When I was a kid I saw them draw 3-3 against a ragtag "Vietnam United" team from the area. They are no better than a team from a sporty high school. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comment about the 7/8th division in England etc, I looked up eg, Harrogate in UK; 160,000 people, and they have two clubs, one in 6th tier and another in 8th tier, but at least both have stadiums about 3,000 with 500 odd seats and are semi-pro. In Australia, 3rd tier soccer teams play in paddocks with no seats, no money etc. Entrance is free, at least the Vietnam Utd v Salisbury Utd one was (at a paddock with no fence/gate). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Nfitz, from English football league system, it appears that only the top 8 tiers in the UK have a regular full season. When I went to 9 and below I couldn't see any bluelinks to any teams. Well the 8th tier teams at least have a stadium. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it isn't really relevant to this discussion, what do you mean by "only the top 8 tiers in the UK have a regular full season". Every team in a league in the UK plays a "regular full season", eg here is the current (a few games left to play) league table (what I believe in Australia you call a "ladder") for the Essex Olympian League, which is level 11. And there are plenty of articles on teams at level 9 and below, see for example Midland Football Alliance, which is level 9 and has articles on every member club. Like I said, not really relevant to this discussion but just correcting a couple of misconceptions........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage this comment thread on the "elite player base" that a football article apparently requires for notability and simply state that I have added a reliable third party source establishing the club is notable for its presence in the Northern Territory Premier League, a League that has merited coverage in the Northern Territory News. Australian Matt (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (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.