Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulldogs off-field indiscretions

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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulldogs off-field indiscretions

Bulldogs off-field indiscretions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Almost all the incidents listed are reasonably minor, with the exception of the 2004 gang rape allegations, which of course received massive media coverage and already have their own article. A couple of them might warrant a mention in Canterbury Bulldogs History, in the context of a discussion of occasional accusations of poor behaviour by Bulldogs players, but I don't see that there's a need for a separate article collating barely a dozen incidents over a decade. Nasica (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Lots of references and notability of the events. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While I personally think the whole thing is massively over-played by the media, the issue remains an ongoing theme in Australian newspapers and football coverage because it is alleged that there is a pattern of behaviour, not simply one incident. The material is too detailed to sit comfortably within the main team article and therefore is best left in this one for those genuinely interested in the gory details. Debate (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Rename I have no opinion on keep or delete, but if it is kept it needs to be renamed to Canterbury Bulldogs off-field indiscretions as the Western Bulldogs, South Fremantle Bulldogs and the four legged canine varieties of bulldogs shouldn't be tarred with the same brush. The-Pope (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I also have no opinion but it should be renamed to Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club off-field indiscretions to match the main article name and at least say what sport is involved. --Bduke (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or at best merge with Bulldogs History (which needs to be renamed per the MOS). This massively violates WP:UNDUE. --Dhartung | Talk 17:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per Dhartung and per WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Dhartung above. I agree with the assessment of WP:UNDUE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
• Trim and Merge into Canterbury Bulldogs History.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment no problem with move/delete/merge of the above article but I do take issue with the random renaming of the main and history article. The official title of the club is the Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club. It is a rugby league club, not a union club. Nor is the club the 'Canterbury Bulldogs', simply the Bulldogs. Canterbury was dropped from the name in 1997. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the main article to Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club. I was unable to revert the History page from Canterbury Bulldogs History so renamed it in line with the main article. It is now Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club history and, I think, I have managed the double-redirects. If you have any other naming concerns, please use a {{move}} template on the talk page of the article and discuss the matter there. The use of "Canterbury" in the team name is a sensitive issue (for and against) for many Bulldogs fans. Cheers. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. per User:Dhartung. I found no reporting that noted these incidents as a pattern of behaviour related to this particular club. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UNDUE. I'd also add that articles of this nature tend to serve primarily as troll magnets, and don't lend themselves to encyclopaedic content or neutral point of view. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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.