Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Heineken Cup Final

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Heineken Cup Final

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

Page provides no additional detail to that already included at 2007–08 Heineken Cup. Insufficient references to establish notability per WP:GNG are included. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't looked deeply enough for sources, but if the consensus develops that the article doesn't meet GNG, then I would suggest a redirect to 2007–08 Heineken Cup#Final. Jenks24 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event had significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It meets WP:GNG as GNG is currently written. --Bob (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added. Also meets WP:Sports event as it is The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league Nominator should look at WP:DEL#CONTENT. Article can easily be improved upon. To quote: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. --Bob (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added. The nominating editor has also been blanking and redirecting the preceeding finals articles for this tournament (1996-2006) then removing the links on the navigation template stating that the articles do not exist. --Bob (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, look at me, I'm a little tell-tale. Those articles were redirected nearly a year ago, and have remained as redirects for that period. Has anyone bothered to add any detail? No. There is no further detail on these articles than already on the main article and thus they are redundant. Yes, the topic is notable, but is an article really necessary if the information already exists elsewhere? Nouse4aname (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now now play nice Gnevin (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm playing perfectly nicely thanks. There is no relevance in "Bobs" comments about edits I made a year ago other than to attempt to make me look like I have been disruptively redirecting loads of articles recently, which is clearly not the case. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability aside, what is the point in having an article that provides no further detail to that already contained on the main article? This is unnecessary duplication. See also Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_games_or_series: "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Nouse4aname (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should be kept and expanded. Instead of being deletionist and simply redirecting this article title to another page, add the content! It's all out there on the interweb. – Pee Jay 21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It seems to me, based on what I read in the Heineken Cup article, that the event is to rugby what the Champions League is to soccer. We have articles on all of the Champions League finals, and I don't see why the Heineken Cup shouldn't receive the same treatment. WP:NSPORTS would seem to be consistent with this. Also, it looks like the article has now been expanded to include a summary of the game. This certainly isn't "merely a list of stats" anymore. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Sports event, this is a final of a major sporting event. Mo ainm~Talk 21:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it just needs to be expanded, it is the final of a major notable sporting competition. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Major sports final. Gnevin (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - we have articles from 1996-2011 for the Heineken Cup Final, how would deleting one of the year be any helpful..better to expand than delete..?..--Stemoc (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should not have been nominated on its own as it is part of a series. If the nominator doesn't think such articles should exist he should have nominated all of them. Picking on one, perhaps in the hope of creating a precedent, is not acceptable. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as far as "notability" goes, the nominator clearly doesn't know much about rugby.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm not an expert on rugby, it still looks good enough, providing details and a lot of references as well, so keep. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Major sports final. Other finals can be improved also but need to be kept. This article in its current state is very notable.--Fernandosmission (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a major final, just as everyone above has said. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2011 (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.