Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBT 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBT Cup

[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)

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I am not sure you understand the GNG criteria. Can you please explain how this article passes GNG? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of additional context, both "fails GNG" and "passes GNG" seem to carry about the same weight... With whom do I WP:AGF? Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but it's because it feels like the work is being pushed to me... I obviously will WP:AGF for both of you, but that now makes it even harder, requiring even more research... -2pou (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources currently on the article fail WP:GNG. They all mention the subject in a trivial matter at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of significant coverage outside of a Portuguese-language Blogspot page. Blogspot is an unacceptable source, though, so cannot be used. All that remains is the basic stats coverage provided by RSSSF which is woefully insufficient. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 29 May 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.