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. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whittlesea United[edit]

Whittlesea United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An unsourced article on a non-notable football club that does not compete at a fully professsional level nor at the highest level in the nation, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - I think that this might also fall under CSD C7. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Was a contested PROD, see this for rationale for contesting. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Matt. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 08:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too far down the tiers. A very quick search shows no significant coverage. Camw (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The league they play in is essentially the 6th tier level in Australian football, behind A-league, Victorian Premier League and three State league divisions. Purely suburban amateur stuff - I should know, I played that level myself - and I'm certainly non-notable! Murtoa (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's a shame that the culture is not yet strong enough behind the game that a 6th tier Australian team cannot be notable, when the existence of English teams (look at Kintbury Rangers F.C. for example), many tiers down, remain unquestioned. Look at Ringwood City - a team once competing in the top Vic league that's all the way down the bottom -- I know people will accuse me of making the "Other Stuff Exists" argument but teams can go up the tiers too so I don't think which tier the team plays in should come into the argument. So it goes. Australian Matt (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not just that they play in the 6th tier now, as far as I can see that is the highest they have ever been. If at some stage Whittlesea had been at the second (might have even been the equal highest tier in those days) tier like Ringwood then that would make a difference. If Whittlesea start moving up the tiers and start getting significant coverage in reliable sources, then their claim to notability will be much stronger. Camw (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ringwood City (and formerly as Ringwood Wilhelmina and Wilhelmina) has had a long and significant history (in Australian football terms), with its genesis as a Dutch-based club in the 1950s at a time of burgeoning popularity of the game and played for many years at the highest level of the game in Australia, there being no national league in those days. Its notability remains intact irrespective of current position. Whittlesea on the other hand has been in existence for 14 seasons, most at the 7th or 8th tier of Australian football. No comparison in my view. Murtoa (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The comment was rebuttal to the "too far down the tiers" and "essentially the 6th tier" arguments as reasons for deletion rather than comparing notability. Notability is important so I'm at least happy that if/when the club is notable, it will merit inclusion. Australian Matt (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The argument was not just that they were "too far down the tiers" it was that coupled with "no significant coverage". Camw (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and, by implication, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability whatsoever. --Angelo (talk) 08:30, 21 April 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.