Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Allsopp Shield

Arthur Allsopp Shield

Arthur Allsopp Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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

Esther Deason Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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

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

• 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)

" 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)

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)

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

Delete. No sources to indicate importance. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 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. Cleome (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

being important is not the same as notable. This is an active competiton that receives no coverage in mainstream press. No sources = no article. Past 2 keep votes convince me no sources exist.LibStar (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete One would not generally expect an under 16s softball trophy to be notable, but of course there is always a chance of finding that a particular case is an exception, so I have searched. I found no evidence of notability. For example, the first few Google hits cover Wikipedia, facebook, www.nt.softball.org.au (clearly not an independent source), sites offering a collection of articles from Wikipedia and like sources for sale, pages that briefly mention it, etc. Other searches similarly failed to indicate notability. The article itself offers no sources. As for the reasons given for keeping: What does "important" mean? does it mean "I personally think it's important"? if not, then it is necessary to indicate significant reliable sources that indicate that it is "important". "Of long standing" and "We are not talking about something new" are totally irrelevant: some brand new things receive significant coverage very quickly, some things that have been around for centuries have received very little attention. Nobody has suggested that it is "made up", so that is irrelevant too: it is not helpful to provide answers to reasons which have not been proposed. As for "I'd also like more assurance that it receives no coverage", the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep to show that there are sources: simply saying "for all we know there may be sources and you haven't shown that there aren't" is no good. Wikipedia requires evidence that sources exist, not a presumption that sources may exist even though none of us has seen them. "The fact that one person can't find online sources isn't sufficient to convince one that it doesn't deserve an article": no, but the fact that nobody has provided reliable sources (whether online or otherwise) is, especially when several people have searched and come up with zilch. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

very well said James. People come up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES lame arguments without a shred of evidence. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions. 1) Is it possible to post something here without impolite and disagreeable, if not borderline uncivil, commentary from folks who want to delete the article? 2) Is it possible that they can stop the endless repetition of their points in favor of deletion? (We heard them the first time. And the second. Etc.) 3) Is it possible that a national trophy, compteted for over many years by teams from several Australian states, and that is of great importance to indigenous Australians without writing or computers, might just be something that has some "notability," apart from coverage of it in sources easily found on Google. 4) Is it possible that if some sources can be found they won't be unreasonably ignored?

I ask these questions because I have a friend who is knowledgeable in Australian softball, and who is willing to do the research necessary to find non-online sources. She is willing to put in the time, but I am concerned that whatever she finds will be dismissed by the same uncooperative voices. Cleome (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)