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 redirect all to Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) . The overarching article seems likely to survive its AfD, and there may be some material that can be merged there, so I have kept the article histories. Black Kite (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canadian Championship 2009

[edit]

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

As requested, I am also nominating the following related pages because: a) it has been requested by other editors, and b) they are related articles, all of which should be deleted together, and this will make it easier for those participating in the discussion.

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

Non-notable Canadian Provinces Gaelic football competition. Some were PRODed, but PROD was removed by creator. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - Both articles fail WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as they are generically a table of results. The topic of the article however, is notable. ~~There is significant coverage~~ but there seems to be no solid indication of notability. Cleanup and include more information in prose on the subject. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point as to NOTSTATSBOOK. I agree that there is no solid indication of notability. I also fail to see significant RS coverage. In the absence of such coverage, I would have no problem with this being userfied, but it would not seem to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Userfy then. A good decision. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for keeping any open mind. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd also like to suggest that we bundle this with the earlier Western Canadian Championship articles (2003-08, I believe). Is there a process for adding them to do one batch deletion?Tyrenon (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've tried my hand at bundling. I've not done this before, so if an admin could check -- especially already existing article 2008, and revise them if I've done this improperly that would be great.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've bundled articles as indicated above. I've left Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) as a stand-alone, so editors can !vote there separately for that over-arching (not year-championship) article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all: to Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? They're all just stats anyways. The article you are attempting to merge to is also nominated for deletion. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed. I voted keep on it. And NOTSTATSBOOK says explicitly that you can use some stats if they are properly contextualized. So pick the best few stats from each of these articles, add some prose, and merge it Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi., Purple. I also challenge all the uncited material. I believe that per wp:CHALLENGED, challenged material should not be restored without inline citations. Given that, would you agree that (at best) deletion or userfy/redirects (if the target survives) would be in order in such circumstances? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I could see it being removed for now and added back into the umbrella article when citations are found Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would certainly have no objection to that. Since wp:CHALLENGED requires that challenged material have inline citations, I always think that in these circumstances it is more efficient to do what you describe. It also has the benefit of not creating needless work; otherwise, the person suggesting the move (not the closer, as it turns out) is the one who moves the edit history and talk page history.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2012 (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.