Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Trinity Grammarians SC

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) 20:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Trinity Grammarians SC

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

Non notable amateur club without any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club. Hack (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - very non-notable, local, amateur club. Giant Snowman 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not surprised I can't find good coverage for a club playing in the, "sixth tier in Victoria."Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable football club, no evidence provided or found to suggest notability under WP:GNG. Possible Speedy Delete if the content is not different to that deleted after the last discussion. Hack (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - v low level club, no significant coverage to indicate GNG pass. Fenix down (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated this article. There is plenty of significant coverage from independent sources, including The Age and The Herald Sun Newspapers, which are some of the biggest national newspapers in Australia. References added 134.159.131.34 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, those passing mentions are not significant coverage and appear, along with any mention in the article of VAFA, to refer to a team playing Australian rules football, not soccer, a completely different sport! The-Pope (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - v. low-level non-notable team, and refs added clearly refer to a completely different team (part of the same umbrella organisation?) playing a different sport. One would have thought the headline "Old Trinity scores 102-point thumping over Werribee Districts" would have given it away - it would have been one hell of a soccer game in which one team scored 102!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2013 (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.