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 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland in the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of the notability of the subject. No indication of any interest in keeping it up to date (no updates in the last 15 years). – Pee Jay 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

This article consists only of a squad list

This article has not been updated since 2009

This article is completely unreferenced

This article is completely unreferenced

This article is completely unreferenced

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability and all are unreferenced. If any of these do meet notability they may as well be recreated due to lack of anything to work with currently. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW the Wellington one is referenced. Aircorn (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete the North Otago one as that is a lower tier competition and as far as I can tell the only one of its type. Not fussed too much either way on whether the rest are kept or not, but am not sure how relevant the "not updated" argument is. The articles are about a competition that occurred 15 years ago, so there is unlikely to be any new information to add in the following years. Quality wise the Wellington one seems the most developed so maybe a weak keep that one and weak delete the others. Aircorn (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no sustained coverage of them after the fact then they are not notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not how notability works. Aircorn (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSUSTAINED, also articles are meant to be based primarily on secondary sources. How can something be notable for our standards if it received no secondary coverage? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I say these articles haven't been updated in 15 years, I mean they haven't been updated since the middle of that season. Those articles are incomplete. In one case, there isn't even any coverage of the season itself, just the pre-season games. But regardless, even if the details of all the matches played in each of these seasons was added, I don't see any reason to keep them due to a lack of any demonstration of notability. It looks like someone had a passion project and then got bored. I'll note that the original authors of all of these articles are no longer active on Wikipedia, and haven't been in over a decade. – Pee Jay 09:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A check for references for this set of articles didn't come up with the reliable secondary coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. Please ping me if better sourcing is found. Let'srun (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.