Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tathra Sea Eagles

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tathra Sea Eagles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Amateur village rugby team from Tathra, New South Wales (Population 1500). As 12% of Australian population are males aged 12-35, this means there are about 180 people to choose from. They play against other village and local town teams in the area, and the article states that they are not always in the top division of the local league, so very much an ameteur village team Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re population: Note that the immediate population of the "village" is not the population available. The villages also draw from surrounding "rural" districts. But agreed, the population is still small. However, the demographic base for a sporting club does not determine notability either way. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an article History of Rugby League in Southeast New South Wales. There is more than sufficient reference material to ssupport such an article. For example, this alone would support a couple of due weight paragraphs for the Tathra Sea Eaglse in such an article. There are also articles such as Group 16 Rugby League, which might be an alternative merge and redirect target, but not as ideal because the "Group 16" has not always existed. (See for example Narooma Devils for other historic competition groupings.) Note that while these small clubs are very unlikely to ever be notable in their own right, they are definitely notable in aggregation and are likely search terms for people interested in either rugby league or the social fabric of the area. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bold third relist because we can't merge and redirect to a non-existent article. What do others think about keep, delete, or other alternatives to deletion that exist. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a weak keep it is. There's a decent amount of info on the club and I've added an extra line and reference to the article for what it's worth. I'm unsure on whether there's a guideline for rugby team notability in the same way there is for football clubs? JonnyDKeen (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of notability guideline for rugby league teams, WP:ORG applies. It fails to get significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2021 (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.