Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 NAB Challenge (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 NAB Challenge

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

This page is a fork of content with no standalone notability. The NAB Cup, which existed until 2013, was a pre-season competition which culminated in a Grand Final and a title-winner; however, the 2014 NAB Challenge, and now the 2015 NAB Challenge which has recently been announced, is a series of discrete pre-season practice matches, not culminating in a title. There is no significant coverage beyond routine coverage. Editors have previously sought to fork this content out of the larger 2014 AFL season article on the basis of its low importance to the larger article, which should lend weight to the argument that the content is insufficiently notable to sustain its own article. An argument given in favour of retention in 2014 was one of continuity between consecutive pre-season competitions; after two consecutive seasons without a title-holder, the argument of continuity should no longer hold, as any return to a pre-season competition with a title-winner would be properly interpreted as a re-establishment of the competition, not a continuation of the previous one. Aspirex (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons:

Aspirex (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should be noted that Aspirex previously nominated 2014 NAB Challenge, and there were no delete !votes apart from the nominator's. In any case, I think the argument of continuity is a sound one - to suggest that "any return to a pre-season competition with a title-winner would be properly interpreted as a re-establishment of the competition" is pure crystal-balling. It can, of course, be difficult to define "signicant" coverage as opposed to "routine", but the flurry of newspaper articles across the country on various aspects of the draw ([1][2][3]) suggests that we already have significant coverage for the 2015 competition. St Anselm (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Your argument of maintaining continuity is the crystal-balling here, not mine – the continuity argument is predicated wholly on the assumption that there will one day be another notable event to bridge to. Additionally, although there are times when the distinction between "significant" and "routine" can be difficult to define, this is not one of them: you've presented a group of articles from regional newspapers, each discussing local fixtures which had been announced in the previous couple of days –this is obviously routine coverage, and I struggle to understand how you could argue otherwise. Finally, I will correct you by commenting that I was not the sole voice in favour of deletion if the pre-AfD discussion at the article's talk page is also considered. Aspirex (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it was not notable, why would anyone care where the games were held? [4]. Each game is reported upon, but it isn't of sufficient importance to list each result in the main season articles. And sometimes it's the sum of the routine coverage that makes the whole notable. The-Pope (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The Norwood Oval article is an expansive opinion piece about the history and future of Port Adelaide's marketability in Adelaide; the actual relevance of that piece to the 2015 NAB Challenge is scant. And your comment about summing routine coverage is a complete fabrication not at all based upon WP:ROUTINE: a large body of routine coverage merely indicates it is an event with either a long duration or which covers a wide range of newspaper catchments – it still can't be used as the sole argument to attribute notability. The articles you have posted links to contain some notable content, but that is all talking about the importance of the games to the region or venue in which they are being played; that content should more appropriately go on the individual venue pages, as it is more directly important to that venue's history than it is to the specific NAB Challenge season; the paragraph at the main 2015 AFL season page about the pre-season could also be extended to list venues hosting their first ever pre-season games (or first games for a long time) without the need for a whole new page. More generally, I find it hard to understand your position that content you deem insufficiently important to go in a main AFL season page – a page which has possibly the least demanding inclusion criteria of any sports article I've dealt with (as evidenced by the exhaustive annual list of delisted players, including uncapped rookies and teenagers) – has enough notability to be forked. Aspirex (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each game of the NAB challenge is reported upon with as much detail as the league games. It is sufficient importance and coverage. --SuperJew (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A baffling nomination. Competition involving the top flight teams, games are generally heavily reported upon in the media. I'm not sure what more coverage the nominator could be looking for; perhaps an eldritch scroll written in Roy Cazaly's blood? The argument that this material is non-notable because it's not included in another article is a complete non sequitur, information on the Australian Football League is not included in Australia either, but that's not a reason for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- The coverage I'm trying to encourage people to find is a single non-WP:ROUTINE article, such as a reference dating from after April 2014 which describes any aspect of the play or results of the 2014 NAB Challenge and treats it as a relevant form-line. NAB Challenge games are not considered among a player's senior statistics, the results of the games are seldom mentioned once the premiership season has begun, to many teams a win or loss of secondary importance even when the games are in progress. It should not be baffling to you that someone might question whether or not a series of games given such little retrospective attention is notable for encyclopedic documentation. Aspirex (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2014 (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.