Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taki Toa Shield


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Taki Toa Shield

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Look at all of those issues! No sources, essay, orphaned page... Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, completely just an unencyclopedic essay article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability, and the lack of sources precludes us from merging the article into a parent page - though as far as I can tell no such page exists. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - it was all of those things, but all of those things are fix-the-problem sort of problems, so I did. It's not hard to add a proper heading, fix the image, and add a couple of references. Please, for the love of God, when will people understand that inclusion, or not, is about notability, and not the current quality of the article you stumbled across. It's been tagged like that since 2014 and most of the coverage relates to the ANZAC Anniversary tournament in 2015 (a year later). WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. With that out of the way, let's see if we can assess the sources here which include (for a sporting tournament) at least one academic study of Maori culture in Australia. The tournament has been going on for 30 years, includes multiple senior-club winners, and is (or was) a mainstay of the Maori community cultural calendar.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for digging those up Stalwart; excellent finds. I looked into them, and with the new name "Taki Toa Tournament" looked for other sources, with the idea towards creating a "Taki Toa Tournament" article that this could be merged into, but unfortunately I don't believe the content is there. The academic source is suitable; while the focus is elsewhere, it consists of more than a passing mention and likely contributes to GNG. However, I suspect the newsletter would be considered a self-published source (the organization, as far as I can tell, no longer exists, so I cannot confirm this) and the South West Voice article only contains a passing reference to the tournament. Further, my own searches turned up nothing; of note; a few passing reference, including one in a doctoral thesis, but nothing significant. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the name is right (see the similar - but much older - Shute Shield) and I haven't seen many sources call it the "Taki Toa Tournament". Yes, that source is probably self-published, but provides confirmation of the translation (if nothing else). I've not gone digging for sources; those were just the first things I found (to see if WP:BEFORE had even been attempted. There is absolutely still an argument to be made that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, but bloody hell, citing improvement tags as a reason for deletion is just insanely lazy.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Following the excellent work from Stalwart111 I think there's enough there for this to be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would say it was per WP:HEY but all of the problems were easily solvable ones and required little to no effort. Significant coverage in major academic studies like this one probably gets it over the line in terms of notability. Again, this is a  sporting tournament  considered so significant to a particular community that its impact on the diaspora has been the subject of academic analysis... alongside the usual coverage that we'd expect for sporting tournaments. The total lack of WP:BEFORE here is enough to oppose this nomination on principle alone.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep following the great work done by Stalwart111, clearly enough to show notability. Deus et lex (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep following additions by Stalwart11, and his cogent reasoning. I also added 2 refs to offline articles in The Sydney Morning Herald. Now clearly meets WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2021 (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.