Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton Football Club salary cap breach

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Football Club salary cap breach

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

I struggle to see the relevence of this page on WP. Currently, a lot of this information is already published (and referenced) in Carlton Football Club. I am proposing deletion of this page. There is no need for a seperate article with such a broad title. Say for example there is a future salary cap breach. Are you going to create an article titled "Carlton Football Club Salary Cap Breach 2"? I don't see this as sustainable. Pdunky (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Definitely notable – one of the biggest ever scandals in Australian football. The Carlton Football Club page only has around two paragraphs on the issue. Ignorant Armies^?! 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Ignorant Armies^?! 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Merge with Carlton Football Club would be sufficient? There is no reason for a separate article on such a specific issue when it is already covered in the main article. Pdunky (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The breadth and depth to which this could be expanded is significant, and for it to be covered in an abridged version in the Carlton Football Club's history would be insufficient, I feel. Arguably the AFL's Black Sox Scandal. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with what IA and fourdot have said. To truly do this incident justice, it would bloat the Carlton Football Club article. It would be better to summarise in the CFC article and have a hatnote to this article, which can go into the detail it deserves and the coverage warrants. Anyway, this clearly meets WP:GNG – have a look at this google news search and keep in mind that many Australian newspaper articles from that time are not online. For examples of significant coverage, see: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Jenks24 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds small to someone who hasn't heard too much about it. But a surprisingly big, and well-documented, issue in Australia. TheGrappler (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2011 (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.