Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louth Intermediate Football Championship

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. This article was nominated for AFD an hour after it had been created in main space and a lot of work has been done on the article during the course of this discussion. Those editors who are assessing its current state believe that problems brought up in the nomination statement have been addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louth Intermediate Football Championship[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Louth Intermediate Football Championship

This stub has no references and no lede section, and does not make a credible claim of significance. A less incomplete article on this topic, which nonetheless was not ready for article space because it had no references, has already been moved to draft space as Draft:Louth Intermediate Football Championship. This stub should be deleted as failing both verifiability and notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ireland. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nom, nothing to be found. ww2censor (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd draftified an earlier version of this and agree that there aren't really sources for this local second-tier cup. eviolite (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sources and references added Moresthepity (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, draftify or redirect (to Louth_GAA#Football). While, when nominated, the nominator's comments (about lack of refs, content or much of anything at all) were true, that is no longer the case. While most of the references and content added since seem to cover individual games in this competition, rather than the competition/history/etc as a whole, the same could likely be said of other intermediate county-level football competitions. Of which we have many. While I appreciate that this is, in effect, an OSE argument, OSE and convention/consensus are a "double edged" sword. Personally I think outright deletion isn't the best course, and that there are alternatives to deletion available that would reflect the content/sources. Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is quite borderline, but I reckon this is a notable competition. There's clearly a lot of coverage of this event, especially the final, in sources such as Hogan Stand, which appears to be a reliable sports magazine, and the Drogheda Independent. While Drogheda itself is not very large, the Independent presumably serves as a regional newspaper for County Louth itself, which has a population of over 100,000 people, meaning it's probably a reliable source. As such, I reckon this competition passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:HEY. Thanks to the efforts of Guliolopez, many independent sources have been added to the article since its nomination. While all of these sources are mainly coverage of individual games, they do show sustained coverage over two decades which indicates a degree of notability. While it would be preferable to have a source or two with a wider long-term view of the competition as a whole to prove WP:SIGCOV; the preponderance of sources here do push this over towards the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2022 (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.