Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1999 Currie Cup


 * 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.

1999 Currie Cup
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AIR corn (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tags say it all.. There is nothing really in this article? No lead.. No sources.. Its just a list of very brief meaningless results. I am not even sure which sport is? ツStacey (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2004 Currie Cup Premier Division is an example of how I think this article should look but the earlier years are much the same without information therefore I extend the nomination for deletion to:

ツStacey (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2001 Currie Cup
 * 2002 Currie Cup
 * 2003 Currie Cup


 * Delete - the article should be improved rather than deleted. However, in its current state, it's probably not worthy of being an article in the first place. I'll try and get around to improving it at some stage; seeing a redlink might inspire me to get around to that sooner! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep – It should now have been improved to an acceptable standard. 2001 Currie Cup, 2002 Currie Cup and 2003 Currie Cup still needs work though. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – They just need improvement, not deletion. It would only take an infobox and a lead paragraph to bring it up to the standard of many of the other rugby Currie Cup season articles. Also, pretty clear case where WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should apply as a keep argument – every rugby Currie Cup season since the 1890s has its own article, and it wouldn't make sense for the consistency of the encyclopedia to delete four in the middle just because those articles were badly written. Aspirex (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – has the framework, just needs more words. Will have references in multiple news sources and probably some books. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I agree this article is now much improved and I have every confidence in User:TheMightyPeanut to do his magic on the others too ;) I withdraw my nomination for deletion. ツStacey (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.