Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakes United
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 keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lakes United
Non-notable club that does not assert its importance. No assertion of professionalism, apparently third tier in the Australian rugby league system. No sources cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The third tier in the Australian RL system is pretty much local league teams, which seems to run against any real form of notability. Local significance, definitely, but not anything more. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)- Following Capitalistroadster's work in establishing notability, I'll change my position to a keep, as they're more notable than most clubs at that same level (I'm not a big RL fan, which explains my initial leanings, but I can count two notable players I've heard of and one probably-notable one I haven't heard of). I'd say, though, that this club is probably going to be the exception rather than the rule where articles on clubs at this level are concerned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MER-C 05:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. They are a significant team - the Newcastle local rugby league competition was third in significance after Sydney and Brisbane in the days before a national rugby league competition in 1988 (admittedly a long way behind) . They have had players make representative teams in rugby league such as NSW Country. Paul Harragon, an Australian player played for them [1] as did Australian player Brett Kimmorley. A Google News archive search comes up with 59 hits. [2]. If necessary, I would vote to merge with Newcastle Rugby League but Lakes United are significant enough to warrant a standalone article. An equivalent UK soccer club to Lakes United would have an article. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Part of why I put this article up for deletion is that there's nothing in Wikipedia to explain the hierarchy. The Newcastle Rugby League article does not explain its position in the hierarchy; I wound up guessing based on the Australian rugby league infobox at the bottom of the NRL article. Because the article did not assert the club's notability, the default is non-notability, and that's why I went to AfD with it. I couldn't find anything useful in a Google search, either. Also, with regard to UK football, note that the first 10 levels of the UK football system are explicitly defined as notable in WP:COMPANY, while no other leagues are so defined. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This side is probably equivalent to a second or third division side in the UK soccer competition. I will work on the article later. It recently had four players that played in a Newcastle representative side against Great Britain. Allan Thomson played for Lakes United in the 1960s while playing for NSW and Australia. The hierarchy is that it is part of the Newcastle rugby league which in turn is part of the Country Rugby League and the NSW Rugby League. Capitalistroadster 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Thank you for putting the club into context! That is my point, that the article doesn't establish that kind of context about where the club fits in the ladder. I'm going to ask two more pointed questions: are most/all of the players on the club paid to play (professionals)? Does the winner of the Newcastle Rugby League go into a knock-out tournament which ultimately crowns the champion of the NSW Rugby League? If either of those statements are true, I'm willing to accept that the club is notable, equivalent to other clubs elsewhere in the globe, and should have an article in the Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Capitalistroadster.Sharkface217 03:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
