Talk:Melbourne University Football Club/Archive 1

Archive 1

Double Standards

Why is this page allowed to stand when the Adelaide University Lacrosse Club page was deleted? Surely this club is of little note being only a student club affiliated to a University? Surely it should be merged with the page on the Melbourne University Sport?

I am deliberately paraphrasing the debate behind the final merge and deletion of the Adelaide Uni Lacrosse Club page. It seems there are double standards on Wikipedia with articles being altered or deleted at the whim of users. What do you think?

Ozdaren 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is. I have already gone through and successfully deleted all the other Melbourne University clubs like rowing, basketball and rockclimbing, but this one used to play in the VFL for a long time, which was the highest level of football at the time. Although it is no longer at the highest level, it historically was, like there have been world champion teams which have since disbanded in some sports, but their pages are not.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The VFL was not the premier football league in Australia around the time the Melbourne University Football Club was involved in it. Port Adelaide were 'Champions of Australia' in 1910, 1913 and 1914. It would seem the VFL was on a similar par with the SAFL. Its prominance as the highest level of football is only a recent phenomenon. During Melbourne University's short period in the VFL the SAFL was producing teams of a higer standard.

In 1982 the VFL expanded from Victoria, when South Melbourne was relocated and renamed the Sydney Swans. In 1987 the Brisbane bears came into being, and the WAFL commission decided to enter a team from the WAFL, called the West Coast eagles. The SANFL however refused to enter the VFL, as they felt that their competition was at least the equal of the VFL.

Since most of the article relates to the current Melbourne University Football Club (s) should it still fall into the same category as the other student clubs which have been deleted? Perhaps a smaller article relating to it's VFL contribution only? Ozdaren 07:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The current MUFC is not significant (any more than, say, the hockey club, which is 100 years old this year). The historical VFL team was. A couple of sentences about the current club is all that's required. --Robert Merkel 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be 2 football clubs with the name Melbourne University Football Club. One club that was disbanded during WW1 and the current club that was created after that time. "World War I - club disbands. When World War I broke out, many young men enlisted to fight, leaving the club with far too few players. It withdrew from the League before the beginning of the 1915 season, and disbanded. There was no hope of re-forming it after the War as it suffered the highest rate of casualties of the league." Would it be more appropriate to therefore only mention the older MUFC which existed in the VFL? Ozdaren 14:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

People, it is notable and significant for 3 big reasons. 1) it is one of the oldest football clubs in the world; 2) It participated in the VFL/AFL, the highest level of competition in Australian rules football, and; 3) It is competing at the highest level in the VAFA, the highest level of amateur Australian rules football in the world. Dose Adelaide University Lacrosse Club have similar claiims to notability ? I personally don't subscribe to the not notable theory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be thorough. It is not a forum for debating what is significant and what isn't by some anally retentive assholes. Afterall, if there is a page for Edinburgh Academicals RFC who play in some fifth division amateur rugby comp or some person that appeared on an episode of Big Brother then surely you can have an article for a football club with over 100 years of history. And if the page exists, why shouldn't the information be thorough ? Should notability really have to apply to the content on the page as well ?? --Biatch 04:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting/deletion

I can see your point Ozdaren, in that I think this club is on the border of non-notability. I would support a merge as you propose. Why don't you act boldly and merge/redirect the article.

I disagree with your comment about double standards though. If this article had survived an AfD debate then you would have a point, but I don't see that it has. Articles are put to AfD when someone comes across it, and feel that there is merit in discussing it's deletion. The fact that no-one has yet come to that point on this article is no reflection on yours. Most Wikipedians would agree that deletions etc come about as a result of community consensus, not on a 'whim'.

Kevin 03:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see where Daren is coming from re double standards, and on that basis, logically the article should remove all reference to the club as it stands today, with only its history. And to whoever suggested merging/redirecting this article, you would have to be joking wouldn't you? There are no other University clubs that played in the VFL/AFL. Rogerthat ^Talk 09:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'll withdraw my double standards comment. It does seem to me that one person's idea of notability may not be shared by another. In any case I have enjoyed researching/reading the history of the different football leagues in Australia. This whole episode has given me a more refined view on the subtle nuances underpinning wikipedia. These are not always obvious to novice users. I'm not sure I am so bold to post a merge/redirect for the article, perhaps assistance from some one more experienced in this regard? Ozdaren 10:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any connection between the pre-1915 MUFC and the present day Melbourne University Blues? If so we should mention that but eveything below that point should be deleted I think.