Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balaklava Football Club

: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. Participants believe these should be nominated separately if needed, signifying no prejudice against speedy renomination of individual articles. ✗plicit 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

=[[:Balaklava Football Club]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Balaklava Football Club}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Balaklava Football Club}})

  • {{la|United Football Club}}
  • {{la|Two Wells Football Club}}
  • {{la|Hummocks Watchman Eagles Football Club}}
  • {{la|Encounter Bay Football Club}}
  • {{la|Yankalilla Football Club}}
  • {{la|McLaren Football Club}}
  • {{la|Mount Compass Football Club}}
  • {{la|Willunga Football Club}}
  • {{la|Victor Harbor Football Club}}
  • {{la|Myponga-Sellicks Football Club}}
  • {{la|Meadows Football Club}}
  • {{la|McLaren Vale Football Club}}
  • {{la|McLaren Flat Football Club}}
  • {{la|Macclesfield Football Club}}
  • {{la|Clarendon Football Club}}
  • {{la|Mount Bold Football Club}}

Per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamley Bridge Football Club, these clubs represent local villages with populations of around 500-2,000 that play against each other. Given that around 12% of Australians are males between 15-35 years old, that means that these villages have around 200 prime-aged males to select for their teams, and these clubs are nowhere near notable in terms of sporting merit. The only refs are village newspapers or the books by Peter Lines on rural local football teams, which are self-published books Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep for now, a quick look at these and they appear to vary significantly in level of sourcing. I think they should be decided on a case-by-case basis. There are multiple book sources cited in some of these articles. NemesisAT (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I can assure you that I clicked on the references, and many of them are just 1-paragraph listings of scores in the village newspapers, and as noted above, the two books by Mr Lines are self-published Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, as at least some of the articles appear to have enough references, so the nomination should be broken up, and the articles nominated individually.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep.The consensus above was clearly to break up the nomination and consider the articles separately. That is what should be done. The separate nominations should be over a period of a few weeks to allow editors to improve the articles and so perhaps keep them. --Bduke (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all per BDuke. Deus et lex (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.