Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Uni Lions (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No compelling, policy-backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. Therefore, this article's subject is currently found to not pass our notability requirements. If an editor would like the article userfied, they may leave a note on my talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Uni Lions

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sydney Uni Lions (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)

AFD was closed too soon so following a snowy Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January 2 I am relisting this for a longer discussion. As I closed the DRV this listing is a formality so I am neutral Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting to see if there's more evidence, but currently leaning toward weak delete or maybe merge/redirect to Sydney Uni Sport and Fitness. Mindful of our desire to avoid systemic geographic bias, I am glad this has been relisted and given a second, longer chance. But the case for retention isn't strong. I look at this article (and at the similar ones about other Australian university gridiron teams that have been deleted recently) and consider that if this were about a relatively minor sport at a major American university, it would still be likely to get its own page, or at least a substantial section in a more general article about the school's athletic program. However, based on the fact that so far very little [1] has been produced in the nature of directly relevant newspaper articles or other sources that are clearly both reliable and independent, it seems reasonable to presume that (i) college sports in Australia can't be presumed to get the same level of coverage that they do in the U.S., and (ii) gridiron football is at best a minor sport in the Australian university world. There is a brief mention of this team at Sydney Uni Sport and Fitness; to keep a separate article, we need to see more evidence of actual coverage in reliable independent sources. I've dug and found only the one article linked above. If someone else can produce more, that would be the best argument for keeping this separate article around. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge. Low level sports club, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There is some coverage in local media but this amounts to routine coverage (mostly match reports). The level of coverage is such that the article at present is primarily based on primary sources. I note that there is not an article on the league in which it competes so would suggest merging salvageable content to the Sydney Uni Sport and Fitness and/or Gridiron NSW pages. Hack (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain or Merge. Agreed, the club fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG (although I do have another external article [2]) and, as mentioned, this is due to American Football being a minor sport in Australia. With that said, this club boasts arguably the best record in arguably the premier competition in a nation that had record participation in this year's college football season [3] and saw one of its own, Jesse Williams (American football), drafted by the Seattle Seahawks after starting on the Alabama defensive line in their national championship seasons. Creditable media coverage of the game, and its more prolific teams and players, will increase as more and more Australians follow this path. As cited above, a minor sport in the US college system (say, rugby) does have some cases where teams have their own article, but most are outlined under the respective college/university. There is no equivalent to the NCAA in Australia; all college/university teams are entered into regional/state/national club competitions, and all can draw on players from outside the university. Thus a merge with Sydney Uni Sport and Fitness article may not be the wisest course (certainly since SUSF's article does not embellish on any constituent clubs, it simply links to those that have their own article) and instead merging the article with Gridiron NSW may be the best course of action, if the case for retention has not been made. --Aussiegriff 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after due consideration. Amateur team in a non-notable league. None of the sources as far as I can see are both independent and more than rote recitation of statistics, so the club fails WP:ORG or WP:GNG, depending on your preferred flavour. Open to changing my mind if substantial and independent coverage can be demonstrated as promised by the user who took this to DRV in the first place. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Notability is not temporary. If no better sources are found (and we've informed the person complaining that he needs a couple of in depth newspaper reports outside the university press I think) then at the moment it's Delete Keep - but tentatively because I don't find the idea that the club has been notable in the past for being an early American Football club in Australia. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can the people above who have commented on this article please look at the updated article. The article now makes plain that the team has been recorded in two separate editions of an independent digest of record for college football as having the best all-time win-loss-draw record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.182.185 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy Okay maybe we have notability now... but seriously, comparing the program to the Chicago Bears? Changes in the article such as that one have, in my opinion, done more harm than good. Get it out of mainspace pronto and if the enthusiastic editors want to work on it in their workspace that's fine by me. When it's ready to go, we can move it in when consensus supports it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two separate editions of the same source is one source. And how much of a write-up did it get? Two lines saying so isn't enough - half a side going into a little depth about the team is (genuine question here as I don't know the answer). But still, that's most of the way there and I've changed from delete to keep (marked above) and am fairly confident that there will be another independent source or two found. (It doesn't matter when from - as I said above notability is not temporary) Neonchameleon (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmcdonald, thanks for your comments. The lifetime win/loss record of the team is being compared with the best lifetime records at the other levels of the same sport - professional, college and high school. These serve as a reference to demonstrate that the lifetime record of the team is, indeed, notable. The point cannot be made without comparison. There is no suggestion that the team is a better football team than the Chicago Bears or any of the other teams mentioned, just that its lifetime record in its competition is better than the best lifetime records in those other competitions. We are happy to accept that further work can be done on the article. Indeed, further mainstream references are being retrieved from our archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.182.185 (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neonchameleon, some further independent sources have been added to the references to the article since your last comment. We are locating further sources in our archives.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_Uni_Lions_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140229222"