Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Allsopp Shield: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:32, 30 May 2011

Arthur Allsopp Shield

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

fails WP:GNG. also nominating sister competition: Esther Deason Shield. don't see how an under 16 competition (even if it's national) which are just mainly results listings merits an article. secondly, it gets no coverage in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important trophy of long standing. I agree that it needs a lot more than just a list of winners, and that the list of winners might be overdone. I do not agree with the opinion that it's "under 16" status is a reason for deletion. I'd also like more assurance that it receives no coverage in mainstream press. (I'm in the U.S., so I don't have a lot of access to Australian mainstream press.)

Also, this page, which is about the Allsopp shield, was reached from the AFD link on the Esther Deason Shield. Please untangle this. Lou Sander (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" This is an important trophy of long standing." Is not a criterion for notability. Neither tournament gets anything in gnews. It is not "important" in the context of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and nothing in a major Aust news site [1]. Please provide evidence of significant coverage of this event. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need to untangle, one AfD can cover to 2 very similar topics. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to indicate importance. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It IS an important trophy in its field. We are not talking about something new, or "made up", or that is of interest only to a very few people. The fact that one person can't find online sources isn't sufficient to convince one that it doesn't deserve an article, or that there aren't sources in the print literature of Australian softball. And of course there's no "need" to untangle, just as there's no "need" to capitalise and punctuate sentences, or to spell correctly. Cleome (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::: there is no need to untangle, one AfD can cover to 2 very similar topics. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 09:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 ::::'''Delete.''' No sources to indicate importance. <font color="Red">[[User:Intoronto1125|Intoronto1125]]</font><b><font color="Yello"><big>[[User talk:Intoronto1125|Talk]]</big></font></b><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/Intoronto1125|Contributions]]</font>  15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Keep.''' It IS an important trophy in its field. We are not talking about something new, or "made up", or that is of interest only to a very few people. The fact that one person can't find online sources isn't sufficient to convince one that it doesn't deserve an article, or that there aren't sources in the print literature of Australian softball. And of course there's no "need" to untangle, just as there's no "need" to capitalise and punctuate sentences, or to spell correctly. [[User:Cleome|Cleome]] ([[User talk:Cleome|talk]]) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)