Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand at the 2013 Rugby League World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. After 3 relists, still no consensus. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 17:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand at the 2013 Rugby League World Cup[edit]

New Zealand at the 2013 Rugby League World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

New Zealand at the 2008 Rugby League World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Zealand at the 2000 Rugby League World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Zealand at the 1995 Rugby League World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All the information is in the relevant pages related to the respective Rugby League World Cups, it's just a duplicated assortment. WDM10 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Is the nomination claiming that all the information in New Zealand at the 2013 Rugby League World Cup is in 2013 Rugby League World Cup, and so on? If so that simply isn't the case. Thincat (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because that claim doesn't seem right either. The other year 2013 articles seem, in relation to New Zealand, pretty much tables of results. The article here has prose content that is somewhat (though inadequately) referenced in "Background" and "Build up" as well as in parts of other sections. Whether these articles should be merged together in some way I don't know (I have no interest in the subject). However, that would likely involve keeping parts of the present article and not deleting it. Any plans for reorganisation of all this material should take place not at AFD but at an appropriate discussion forum. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:48, 17 December 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.