Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Kilda–Fremantle AFL controversies

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda–Fremantle AFL controversies

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

Seems to be a WP:synth article. There is no parent article (i.e. St Kilda–Fremantle AFL rivalries) so it is not a split and must meet the WP:GNG. So far there is only one article that discusses the topic of the article in depth[1]. This is a St Kilda website which I am not sure even meets our definition of a WP:RS. Everything else is just standard news that you would expect to find between any two clubs of any two sports.

The lead itself is pure original research which just underlines the dubious nature of this article. This is just a laundry list for non-notable incidents. There are better articles for ones that are semi-notable (season articles and the like) and notable ones can always get there own one (e.g. AFL siren controversy). AIRcorn (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this is obvious WP:SYNTH. The only source which says that there is in fact a notable history of "controversies" involving the two teams is a blog. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH; agree with nom regarding the intro being purely original research, being an avid supporter, Fremantle and St Kilda matches having a "particularly high frequency of controversial and unusual events" doesn't spring to mind for me and no reliable sources back this statement to be true. Flickerd (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with multiple redirects for article items, and merge content:
- 1999: Peter Carey mark into Peter Carey (umpire) if not already there, and redirect from Peter Carey mark
- 2005: Whispers in the Sky into Matthew Head if not already there, and redirect from Whispers in the Sky
- 2006: Sirengate redirect to existing main article AFL siren controversy
- 2007: Steven Baker suspended into Steven Baker (Australian footballer) if not already there
- 2011: Ross Lyon switches clubs into Ross Lyon if not already there

Article is an arbitrary synthesised list. If really interesting to some readers, then create a see also controversies list in each of the club articles with links to the relevant sections in the above main articles. The storm damage item is not a controversy at all? Aoziwe (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally a good idea to avoid merging then deleting due to attribution issues. If any information is to be merged it would be easier to redirect this article to AFL siren controversy as that is the major incident and keep the contribution history intact. I don't think this is needed though as all the incidents are mentioned in the corresponding articles already with either the correct weight or with too much weight (Peter Carey (umpire) and Steven Baker (Australian footballer) could actually do with some trimming to bring them in line with WP:Due). Whispers in the Sky could easily be changed to redirect to Matthew Head if it is thought to be a common enough search term though. AIRcorn (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For background, this page did start its life as "St Kilda–Fremantle AFL rivalry", and like many of the sports rivalry articles in Wikipedia, it was just a list of events with no tangible rivalry to back it up; I changed the name to 'StK-Freo AFL controversies' a few years back to make it a more apt name to fit the article. Like all of the other rivalry articles that come and go, from Wikipedia, this should be deleted as a SYNTH. Aspirex (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2016 (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.