Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasmania official football team: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:17, 21 March 2011

Tasmania official football team

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

Article had been PROD'd for a second time. Opening up debate.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's very bad form to nominate an article for deletion without giving reasons. St Anselm (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty neutral to it to be honest so I didn't want to sway any argument. It was most likley nominated as it isn't a national football team and they've played a very limited number of games. Then again they represent a large number of people. All I know is someone placed a PROD and someone else removed it so there's obviously a discussion needed on it remaining on wikipedia. Hope that explains its nomination. Delusion23 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:KEEP #1. St Anselm (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed mind from from neutral after considering other similar cases. Team is not notable and has done nothing of note. It has played very few games and does not represent a nation, only a state. Precedent set in similar cases here: Saint Croix official football team, Nevis national football team, Saint Eustatius official football team and Bonaire official football team. Delusion23 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see List of non-national representative teams in men's football? You can't argue for precedent without implying that everything on that list should be deleted. Not that this other stuff has anything to do with the article under discussion. St Anselm (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anselm seems to be right regarding WP:KEEP #1. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe was at the time, but it appears at least one other editor thinks the page should be deleted, so fails WP:KEEP#1.--ClubOranje^T 10:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Association football in Tasmania; I don't think that 'official' teams from areas deserve seperate articles, but this info is probably worth having somewhere. Giant Snowman 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's an independent football team. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I PRODed this article but had not yet got round to opening an AfD. I have been nominating these articles for deletion for the last couple of weeks in the hope of pruning away the unverifiable and/or unnotable teams that can be seen on the list cited by StAnselm. The article does not meet the general notability guideline. Representative teams are not self-evidently notable entities. Aside from this, we have no idea what this team is, or if all teams named 'Tasmania' have any relation to each other beyond their name - for example, how are players selected? Have they played for a Tasmanian team? Are they born in Tasmania? Are they just using the name to drum up some publicity? Stu.W UK (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a national team, merely a representative one. My county of birth has a representative team, but having a separate article for it wouldn't be justified because it just isn't notable enough. There is a section for it here which I think is acceptable. I'd recommend a similar arrangement for this team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Procedural nom or no, I prefer my AfDs to proffer a reason for nomination. The original prodder is free to nominate the article in his own right. RGTraynor 11:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what possible difference will that make to the discussion? I'll happily nominate again but I'm pretty sure the debate will be copied and pasted from here Stu.W UK (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
 *'''Speedy Keep:''' Procedural nom or no, I prefer my AfDs to proffer a reason for nomination.  The original prodder is free to nominate the article in his own right. [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;RGTraynor&nbsp;</span>''']] 11:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
+:And what possible difference will that make to the discussion? I'll happily nominate again but I'm pretty sure the debate will be copied and pasted from here [[User:Stu.W UK|Stu.W UK]] ([[User talk:Stu.W UK|talk]]) 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)