Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Wells Football Club

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 redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Wells Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamley Bridge Football Club, this club represents a local village with populations of around 2,000 that play against each other nearby villages. Given that around 12% of Australians are males between 15-35 years old, that means that these villages have around 200 prime-aged males to select for their teams, and these clubs are nowhere near notable in terms of sporting merit. The only refs are village newspapers or the books by Peter Lines on rural local football teams, which are self-published books Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Bumbubookworm:, the consensus was to deal with these one at a time, not give you license to just run the lot of them again together. Can you please withdraw the nomination for all of these except one so proper consideration can be given to each AfD debate, and run them ONE at a time? Deus et lex (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep for failure to properly run this AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: IMO, listing three similar articles in separate AfDs on one day is not so taxing to editors in the topic area (nor so overbearing on the AfD process in general) that it justifies a procedural close. More than five, maybe, but not three.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Premeditated Chaos:, at least 4 have been nominated at the same time, and on the same day that the previous AfD was closed, in direct contradiction to the consensus reached earlier. It's disruptive. Deus et lex (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't, and clearly I'm not the only admin who thinks so, or these nominations would have been speedy closed by someone before the initial week-long nomination period ran out. Four AfD nominations on similar topics in one day is not disruptive to the AfD process in general or so burdensome to editors in the topic area that it would be impossible for them to keep up, especially given that AfD discussions run for at least a week. Further, there is nothing in the result of the previous AfD that precludes or contradicts nominating similar articles for deletion (just because one closed as redirect does not meet that another would be suitable for the same).
  In the time it took you write this and copy-paste it to four different AfDs, you could have been checking for sources and making an actual policy-based argument for keeping the article. I suggest you turn your attention to that if you wish to see the articles retained. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the articles - I just think it's an abuse of the AfD process for an editor to immediately renominate half the articles they previously did when they were told that a mass nomination was inappropriate. And I think you should care about that too. Deus et lex (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The close statement of the previous AfD was, in full, The result was keep. Participants believe these should be nominated separately if needed, signifying no prejudice against speedy renomination of individual articles. In other words, the admin closing the mass nomination specifically gave individual renominations the go-ahead, per the consensus of the discussion (and per common practice after a large failed group AfD). There is no abuse of process going on with these AfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The admin gave the go-ahead to run them separately - that means one at a time. It did not give the go-ahead to run a mass nomination again (which was the problem with the first AfD). This is an abuse of the AfD system, and you should not be supporting it. Deus et lex (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that means one at a time - no, it does not. It means individually as in "not bundled together". Four separate AfDs whose subjects are within the same topic area is not a mass nomination, and I'm not going to go around in circles trying to explain it to you further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk of the nomination being disruptive appears to be a stalling tactic. The nomination complies with both AfD rules and the closing statement made in the previous AfD. Instead of arguing over points of order, a more productive thing for anybody wanting the article retained would be to make an effort to improve the article. Nelertasta (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not raising this as a stalling tactic, I'm raising legitimate issues about the process by which this and the other AfDs have been put forward. I think you are wrong, Premeditated Chaos and Nelertasta. I'm concerned that editors mass nominate articles, then when told not to do so just go and do the same thing again. It's not right, and there should be no arbitrary distinction between 4 or 5 articles about what is or isn't a mass nomination. The complaint in the first AfD was that a one at a time nomination would be better, and that is the only way to do this properly. Deus et lex (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Explicit, since you were the closer at the last AfD, can you confirm that I am not misinterpreting your closing statement? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos and Deus et lex: PMC's reading of my closure is correct. The consensus was to list the articles for deletion in separate nominations instead of a bundle, not one at a time. ✗plicit 08:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deus et lex, you appear to be suggesting that there should only be one active nomination at a time, i.e. one gets nominated, the process then runs over a couple of weeks, then is closed and the next is nominated? So the process is spun out over a couple of months, talk about death by a thousand cuts. Nelertasta (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, notability not demonstrated. Alternative would be a merge to Adelaide Plains Football League. Nelertasta (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League: Available sourcing fails to meet the threshold of the General Notability Guideline. Redirect to the overarching league as an alternative to deletion. I have considered and discount the concerns regarding procedural irregularities as unfounded. Jack Frost (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Adelaide Plains Football League per above as WP:ATD-R. As Explicit has clarified what they meant by "speedy renomination of individual articles," the discussion of procedure is needlessly WP:BUREAU at this point. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:00, 5 November 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.