Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VFL Development League

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VFL Development League[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. The seven references currently present are a handful of WP:ROUTINE sources describing a couple of key moments in this league's 90-year history; but there is no non-database reference which describes this league in any significant or holistic way. From my extensive experience editing on articles about the VFA/VFL seniors (this article covers the reserves team for that league), I do not believe the necessary SIGCOV exists, and even Fiddian, Marc (2004); The VFA; A History of the Victorian Football Association 1877–1995 – a book widely considered the best overall compendium on all things VFA/VFL – covers the topic of the Development League only in a couple of end-of-book reference lists (list of premiers, list of best-and-fairest winners, list of leading goalkickers) with little in the way of prose. The subject is adequately, and with due weight, covered in Victorian_Football_League#Seconds/reserves as is. Aspirex (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think GNG is clearly met by the press coverage, and merging this into the VFL article would lose the reference tables which you would expect to find in an encyclopedia - and as the nom notes, were still worthy enough to be referenced in the compendium. Simply put, it's properly sourced, notable enough, and deleting the article makes Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shocker that I'm saying keep but yeah it's referenced properly and I think - similar to the new AFL reserves page - we'll have more info added soon to really differentiate it from what it was as a small section on the main VFL page Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfD is the right venue here – surely the decision is keep or merge, not keep or delete. – Teratix ₵ 04:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first of all, this was listed at the wrong deletion category - this is the wrong football code. However, article seems to have some sourcing, and it clearly seems like a notable league to me. Keep. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. Skynxnex (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes GNG; the League is definitely notable IMHO. Ekdalian (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2023 (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.