- 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. — TKD::Talk 09:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Darebin Falcons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
procedural nomination, expired prod on women's Aussie football team that someone may find notable. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While there are 100 news hits for Darebin Falcons, not all of them refer to this team. [1] References are mainly from suburban newspapers in Melbourne but this generally reflects the lower profile of women's sports teams. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable sports team. We don't delete articles just because they're on a topic which suffers from systemic bias issues. Rebecca 03:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. as per Rebecca. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The team plays at the highest possible level in its sport. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see from the article that this is the highest level of Australian Rules Football. And I don't see from the article that they are a notable sports team - while they may well be notable in the smaller definition of the world of Womens' Australian Rules Football, that isn't the same as WP:N - notability.They fail WP:CORP - it isn't an article about a sportsperson, it's an article about a team, so WP:BIO should not apply.Garrie 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not mean to apply WP:BIO although I can see why my wording would make it appear so. I concede that it is unlikely that the team meets WP:CORP. Despite this I think it should be kept for similar reasons as Rebecca. The article states that the team plays in Division 1 of the Victorian Women's Football League, "the oldest and largest Australian rules football league for women in the world". As there is no national womens league, to my mind this is the highest level available. Australian rules football is one of the largest sports in Australia both by participation and public interest. Given the above, I feel it is appropriate to have articles on clubs playing this sport at the highest level available, regardless of WP:CORP, which is only a guideline and is not (and should not) be an inviolable rule. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am convinced by the arguments that this is the highest possible level in Aussie Rules for women. --Bduke 03:54, 8 August 2007 (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.