Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RFL President's 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 no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

RFL President's Cup

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no indication that the cup is notable. Sources largely are not independent, not reliable, or don't cover the competition in any detail; most are WP:ROUTINE game reports. Multiple sources don't even confirm the specific statements they're cited for. Major parts of the prose don't come with any sources whatsoever, indicating original research, the removal of which would amount to practically blanking the page. Huon (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well sourced article detailing multiple competitions featuring in an overall festival of rugby league.Fleets (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fleets, how is this well-sourced? Please point out a single reliable third-party source that covers the competition in some detail (ie is not just a game report) and backs up the content in the article that it's cited for. Huon (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 20 references and four external links. I'm not saying that the individual teams are inherently notable, but you will struggle to get the Telegraph to put on a match report for England Students v Lionesses. It is a history of an amateur set of competitions, with sources that are appropriate to that. No-one is saying this is the FA Cup, but it is appropriately sourced for what it is.Fleets (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you haven't actually checked the sources. Having many footnotes and external links doesn't make something well-sourced. For example, references #6 and #9 are the same, and the source confirms neither of the two statements it's cited for. That's not the only problem by far. Huon (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Article is well sourced with a number of independent sources, including an independent weekly sports newspaper with a significant circulation - Rugby League & League Express - and its associated website. Additional sources from the newspaper will be provided shortly. Regional publications are also now cited.

The article has now had edits from a number of highly regarded Wikipedia editors, their adoption of which demonstrates the value of the article.

This competition is far more notable and better sourced than other sports' competitions that have extensive wikipedia coverage. Examples available on request. Feederdave (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I advise to check what the sources actually say. The page now cites the BBC, for example, but the BBC article doesn't mention this competition. Huon (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Correct the BBC article references the move to Manchester for the England Women's squad. But not every citation needs to reference the competiton, in this example its adding credance to narrative of the evolution of the women's pathway. Feederdave (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, sources need to reference the subject of the article. See WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. Huon (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Its illustrating a different factual point. Not every source on wikipedia has the article title in it. Your earlier comment about sections of prose not being referenced conflicts your point now; this prose is now properly referenced but now you don't accept it?

As stated previously, there are thousands of less notable sports competitions with little to no independent sources of information on wiki. This competition IS notable on account of its status as being for national representative teams and the fact that is is referenced in multiple national and regional titles and web sources run by government departments (ministry of defence). Feederdave (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the other sports competitions, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And regarding the referecing of the content, what's written about the RFL President's Cup still isn't well-sourced. Example: "The women's competition was discontinued following the RFL revamping the international player pathway process and introducing a National Performance Programme with a focus on talent identification, player skill development, physical competences and the creation of a performance coaching environment in advance of the RFL opening a National Rugby League Centre in Manchester which will provide facilities for the England Women's team to train at." Neither of the sources mentions the President's Cup (or Association's Cup); thus they cannot say anything about the discontinuation of the women's competition. The remainder of that sample might be better-referenced but is off-topic. Huon (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

But the rest you have no issue with? Feederdave (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have issues with pretty much the entire page. In case it's kept (which it should not be, IMO), I'll do some cleanup, ie removal of unsourced, unreliably-sourced and off-topic content. Nothing much will remain, as I said in the nominating statement above. Huon (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you identify the sources you believe to be unreliable, so I can clarify for you? Feederdave (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As of the current revision, sources 1, 2, 5, 6, and 13 are clearly not reliable third-party sources. Passing mentions include sources 3, 4, and 7. Entirely irrelevant are sources 8, 9, and 10. Sources 11 and 12 don't say what they are cited for. All others are WP:ROUTINE game reports that do not discuss the Cup itself.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 04:12, 20 January 2019 (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.