- 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 . There were few delete arguments, else this would likely have leaned toward "delete", as keep arguments focused on "It's a..." rather than the appropriate availability of sourcing. However, at least some attempt at sourcing seems to have been made, so a future nomination may be able to determine if this is sufficient to actually demonstrate the notability of the subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 2019 National Conference League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested redirect. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak / Moderate Oppose: Based on the fact that the 2012 season and 2013 season had existed on Wikipedia unchallenged before I have / currently am doing trying to update the competition to present day. That being said however, those pages aren't in great depth themselves so I would suggest that the outcome of this discussion is applied to all NCL pages from 2012 to present and also to the 2010–11 Rugby League Conference page aswell. If I'm being honest this is an issue across rugby league articles on Wikipedia and some continuity is desperately needed so it's why I want to keep all or bin all. However my preference would be to keep the pages, I don't feel the National Conference League page covers individual seasons in sufficient detail and adding the detail currently on each NCL season page to the main NCL will overload the page. Second as the majority of teams competing in the NCL have their own page, I think that Wikipedia should have some record of the competition results. Thirdly, football in England has individual season pages down to tier 9, so I don't think it's out of order for English rugby's tier 4 to have either. As for citations, I agree the pages needed to be better sourced, but that comes with building the article, and deleting it doesn't help with the building process. Mn1548 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a very welcome addition to the coverage on Wikipedia of a leading UK rugby league competition. Rillington (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Trust this is sufficient to satisfy the nominator. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agreed sourcing is the issue here. I can understand the delete due to failing verifiability but not due to notability. That being said sources are hard to find so if people could help with that, it would be amazing. Alot of rugby league article suffer with a lack of continuity which results in pages being created which should have been done along time ago and thus sources are harder to find. At the end of the day it makes no sense to only have articles for 2012 and 2013. But to reitterate what has been said, articles need improving, not deleting, as do alot of rugby league article on Wikipedia. Mn1548 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep rationales discuss its subjective importance within its field but do not make an argument on how it would meet a notability guideline. Do sources show notability through WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just as an aside, I have added a dozen references to this article since it was AFD'd, which should show that this article easily meets GNG. A quick Google search shows there is plenty of coverage for matches played at this level. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review after addition of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.