Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aboitiz Football 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.

The result was   Keep. Clear consensus that notability concerns have been met.Mike Cline (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Aboitiz Football Cup

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural AfD. Article was prodded with the reasoning "There is no evidence to suggest that this competition meets notability guidelines", but the prod was removed by a user citing WP:BEFORE. However, there is still no indication that the article meets our criteria for notability, and the article should be deleted. – PeeJay 08:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 08:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. This is clearly a non-notable competition. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's some news coverage to be found about this tournament - a comparable amount to a typical English county cup - but this tournament has an extra bit of importance as it's used for selecting the regional representative to national tournaments.  Bettia  (talk)  13:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. How on earth the deprodder justifies the allegation of failing to follow WP:BEFORE is beyond my comprehension. This case should have drifted through the PROD process as an uncontroversial deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and slap myself with a trout. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is, in fact, plenty of coverage in reliable sources, meeting the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I removed the prod citing WP:BEFORE, and I stand by that reason. Plenty of references to be found if one looks. Andy14and16 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil. Coverage appears to be available so it meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (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.