Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Rock 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 delete. Although many people wanted this kept on the grounds that this is a national competition, there is no basis for that rationale in policy. In fact, NSPORT has very little to say on competitions at all, even though it claims to be the relevant guideline for that. Two merge suggestions were made. Football in Gibraltar currently has nothing on women's football. If someone wants to undertake a merge, I will undelete on request and redirect to the chosen target. SpinningSpark 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Women's Rock Cup

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG. ||  Orbit Wharf   💬  18:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a recurring women's football tournament since 2013, cancelled twice due Covid. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a top level national competition in a FIFA-affiliated nation. Number   5  7  08:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per N57, national cup competition. GiantSnowman 08:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG. All I could find was passing mentions and routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Regardless of being a top level national competition. (And its Gibraltar) That's kind of a small community on that Island. I agree with the nomination that this clearly fails GNG. Also saying it's a top level competition is not clear grounds for keeping an article. GNG is pretty specific and the keep votes above currently have not provided any true evidence for keeping the article. Govvy (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per others, a top level national competition. Women are under represented on Wikipedia and deleting this article does not help matters. NemesisAT (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep- per above. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It's considered as a one of top level national competition.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - we generally keep top level national competitions for both men and women. There is no appropriate merge location so I support keeping the article as the only way of retaining this important info. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely a national competition. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the above opinions are certainly valid and I think ultimately this article *should* be kept, I haven't been able to find any WP:SIGCOV to justify my feelings. If someone is able to find sources to help this pass GNG, I'm more than happy to change my vote. GauchoDude (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be kept, WP:IAR exists. NemesisAT (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IAR would require that keeping this improve the encyclopedia. Keeping an article which cannot currently meet our most basic content policies [i.e. WP:V] (by not being able to be sourced to independent reliable sources) does not "improve the encyclopedia". Whether this is a women's tournament, or whether there is a systemic bias on Wikipedia, are not good reasons to write something about it when all of the sourcing is dramatically poor; and instead it quite strongly stinks of WP:RGW, which is an even worse reason to keep this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Number57 a national cup football competition.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The vast majority of keeps are simply asserting that "its important", but that's a strikingly poor argument if this actually fails GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources, apparently a minor local sports event similar to the games of the Gibraltar Women's Football League (perhaps merge with that to a Women's Football in Gibraltar article?) —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There was always one source, I've now added a further two. NemesisAT (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any reliable sources? The first one is user-generated, the other two look like blogs (and the Spanish one appears defunct). If this is a major sports competition, it should be written about in major newspapers, nationally and in nearby countries. Otherwise, this just shows that "top level national competition" isn't actually an indicator of notability. —Kusma (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/ Redirect to Gibraltar Women's Football League per WP:ATD. I could find zero significant coverage in reliable independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. If this were in fact a major national competition there would be some coverage somewhere. There isn't. Given that the GWFL only has three to five teams at any given time during its history, it's not surprising that the cup doesn't get much coverage.  I would like to remind the closer that AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE, and there isn't a strong policy based argument to keep the article at this time. A merge and redirect would probably be the best solution given the lack of sources but the desire to maintain coverage. This seems like the best compromise. 4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Permastub with 3 sentences, except for an yearly expanding list of champions which must necessarily be referenced to a database and not a secondary source with significant coverage. A search for sources brings up nothing of worth, so this fails WP:GNG. Nothing substantial in the article itself that deserves the bother of merging, either. Avilich (talk) 18:45, 24 October 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.