Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of South Hobart F.C. records and statistics

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. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Hobart F.C. records and statistics[edit]

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

A statistics page for a amateur/semi pro club is not needed at all. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 07:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS, definitely a club well below the notability level for such a standalone article. A comment on the hat trick record in the club article is all that is needed. Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS, if this was an higher rated club, then I would say a weak keep but its not needed. Matt294069 is coming 00:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, as there are no sources that discuss the article information as a whole, also WP:NOTSTATS, and anyway, South Hobart FC article is small enough to contain any relevant info under a stats section? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all to suggest its own convincingly independent article. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 22 July 2016 (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.