Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Ore 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

=[[Iron Ore Cup]]=

:{{la|Iron Ore Cup}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iron_Ore_Cup Stats])

:({{Find sources|Iron Ore Cup}})

I question whether there is a genuine rivalry here. Aside from the fact that many of the links in the reference section are dead, those that are still live talk of a "rivalry" established before the teams have even played each other. This sounds to me like an attempt to hype up the match and the league in general rather than a genuine rivalry. Additionally, they have only been playing each other for four seasons (and the article itself concedes it is considered a "minor rivalry"). I would think a much longer tradition of matches needs to be established before it can be said there is a genuine rivalry which passes WP:GNG and needs its own article. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry/competition. Giant Snowman 09:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose request early close via the Snowball Clause - Passes the requirements for WP:GNG. The author is inventing his own guidelines and weasel words; how long exactly does a rivalry have to exist to pass Fenix's "long tradition" weasel word clause? Where can I find an official "long tradition" guideline? Who decides how 'genuine' a rivalry is if not the reliable sources? These weasel words are an attempt to justify why we should ignore GNG. While it could use a re-write and the addition of sources, it is clearly notable as per GNG. That's all that matters. I'd also like to point out the author failed to follow WP:BEFORE and has not bothered to discuss the topic on the talk page for any of the half-dozen related articles he nominated en-mass today. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - the notion of a long tradition is not attempting to circumvent GNG, in fact it is being used precisely to show that as there have only been a handful of games and there is no indication of anything notable beyond the fact that the games have been played. No significant chain of notable incidents seem to be connected with this match. Perhaps in time a genuine rivalry will develop, but it is difficult to show fulfillment of GNG after only a couple of seasons. Please also heed your own advice re weasel words. Phrases like "clearly notable" without showing how are disengenuous. Fenix down (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be notable as its covered specifically by multiple news articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:*Comment - the individual matches are covered by sources, but the cup itself is unofficial and so is non-notable. There is nothing in the sources however, which discusses the rivalry itself in any detail, which is what this article is about. All the sources noted do is present a WP:SYNTH of a series of matches from which a "rivalry" is derived. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep For same reasons as Shiftchange. The lack of official status doesn't make it non-notable.Hughesdarren (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2013 (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.