Talk:Adelaide University Football Club

Australia: Adelaide / Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal Adelaide University Football Club is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This page has been spun off the Sport at the University of Adelaide page. It seems incomplete and may have been lifted directly from the club's own web page. It requires major editing. Ozdaren 13:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

The AUFC is the most notable amateur football club in South Australia. It has a national reputation and is quite old. Although the article does not meet WP standards for format etc it should remain. Just because it cannot be cross referenced on the internet does not mean it should be deleted. The internet is not the repository of all the information in the world. KEEP. Ozdaren 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Please read the verifiability page. It says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." So please provide reliable sources for the information in the article or I will delete it. The source does not have to be on the internet. Books, newspapers and encyclopedias can be reliable sources. Username nought 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a number of references and sources that are verefiable and unique. Your addition of a "Unreferenced|date=June 2007"tag is part of campaign to delete articles relating to student culture. I have removed your tag. You will better need to prove intentions. Ozdaren 12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I don't think this subject is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Please read the Wikipedia guideline on notability, it says, "Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability" and "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If sources like this can't be found I suggest this article gets merged with another article. If sources aren't found within 2 weeks I will start the deletion process. Username nought 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Your tagging is incorrect and represents a POV on your behalf. I have now removed the tag. If you want to improve the article feel free to find more sources. Ozdaren 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the tag for notability unless reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that have significant coverage of the subject are added to the references section. The article currently does not cite any sources like this. If the tag is removed again without the required sources added to the reference section I will consider it an act of vandalism. Username nought 13:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. The source cited in the article lead gives a detailed description of the inclusion of the AUFC into the SAAFL (itself a notable body), along with the positive effect its inclusion had on competition in South Australia. Did you even read the article? You are the vandal, mate.--Yeti Hunter 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nought, you obviously do not grasp the intention of the reliable sources guidelines. There is no logical way that a reliable source can be independant of the subject. How could a reliable article that claims to have significant coverage of the subject possibly be independant of the subject. Now you are just not making any sense. Please clarify your comments with some original prose, not just quotes or paraphrasing of wiki guidelines. ABVS1936 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adelaide University Football Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830075002/http://saafl.asn.au/history/formation.php to http://www.saafl.asn.au/history/formation.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]