Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coal Bowl (basketball tournament)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Bowl (basketball tournament)[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)

Can't PROD this since it was de-prodded 11 years ago. There is some coverage, but even the coverage on the CBC web site was written locally, and the rest is all routine youth sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG. (Came across this doing CAT:NN cleanup - simple advertisement here, if you have a minute, check to see if there's an article which has been tagged as not passing the GNG for over a decade and see if you can rescue it or nominate it for deletion and help clean up the encyclopaedia.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately it does not meet the notable coverage guidelines. --James Richards (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Finding a fair amount of coverage. E.g., "(1) Coal bowl experience not just about the basketball", 2008; (2) "New Waterford Coal Bowl Classic officials bring wealth of experience to the court, 2020; (3) "New Waterford residents remember Coal Bowl over the years", 2020, (4) The Coal Bowl: youth basketball in Nova Scotia, 2001. See full results from Newspapers.com here, (5) "Unified at Coal Bowl in New Waterford", 2020, (6) Host Breton Education Centre Bears win Coal Bowl, 2016; (7) Hoop dreams and coal seams, 1999. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG (see above) and WP:NHSPHSATH. This is a national high school basketball tournament in Canada that has been around for 50 years, and the coverage is national in scope, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the coverage you listed, one's a WordPress site, the other is NewsBreak which does not appear to be a reliable source (it's for a city in Ohio but aggregated the story from Nova Scotia). With one exception - the CBC broadcast - the remaining articles are just routine articles about a youth sports tournament, almost all of which are local. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. I offered a variety of sources to show the breadth of coverage. For example, you ignored this feature coverage from the other side of the country in Saskatchewan. And the depth of coverage in this piece (originally from Shunpiking magazine) is impressive. I'm not generally an advocate of high school sports articles, but this tournament has both a breadth of geographic coverage, a depth of coverage, and long duration of coverage over roughly 50 years that I think is sufficient to demonstrate its notability. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few more examples of the geographic breadth of coverage: (8) another national television piece from the CBC; (9) this from Yahoo Sports/CBC in 2017; (10) this from Yahoo News/CBC in 2018; (11) this and (12) this from SaltWire Network (newspaper consortium in Eastern Canada); (13) this from Church News in Utah; (14) this full-page article from British Columbia; (15) this from B.C. in 1988; and (16) this from Alberta. Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per Cbl92 sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the rare instance where I think the new sources provided in the AfD warrant keeping the article. With the caveat that they should be added to article and used to expand it. Otherwise, I suggest the original nominator just renominates it in 6 months, because I'm not a big fan of people providing sources in AfDs and then them never being used to improve the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I spent the time to find the sources. How about you take the time to add them to the article? Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really edit articles that much these days because I got sick of being reverted all the time, but I might if no one else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2020 (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.