Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Atlantic_Cup_2011_(football) References

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. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup 2013 (football), there also doesn't seem to be prejudice against merging appropriately slakr^\
talk / 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

The Atlantic Cup 2011 (football)

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

Fails WP:GNG for being the individual season article of a non-notable friendly competition. Precedent at previous The Atlantic Cup 2013 (football) AfD. JMHamo ( talk) 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 21:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete all per precedent set in AfD linked to by nominator. – Pee Jay 21:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete all - the parent tournament may be notable, these individual seasons are not. Giant Snowman 13:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete all - per nom, the 2011 and 2012 articles contain nothing that is not routine reporting of matches, mainly drawn from local reporting and the participating club websites themselves. 2014 has more coverage, but this still consists of a number of very brief articles. There is nothing in any of the sources that goes much beyond simply stating that the tournament took place, certain clubs to part and the scores of the matches involved. Fenix down ( talk) 14:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to The Atlantic Cup (football). I don't see why more AFDs are going on here. This seems punitive and unnecessary, coming down on the editor(s) who created the main article and these year-specific ones. There was adequate consensus established in the prior AFD about the 2013 one, that an editor could have gone ahead and had discussion at the main article's talk page, leaving record of the consensus that separate year-articles should not be re-created if much more further evidence is found about their separate notabilities, and then proceeded with merging and redirecting. The redirects would hold the past history of edits. If the 2011, 2012 and 2014 ones are deleted, I would be inclined to immediately recreate them as redirects, and also to request restoration of the edit histories, undoing the effect of a deletion decision. Note, the main article was also AFD'd, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup (football), where the result was Keep, providing plenty of negativity for the original creator(s). Again, these further AFDs seems unnecessary and unpleasant, and, given that it is started as an AFD, the best thing to do is to decide to merge and redirect. -- do ncr am 14:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - what on earth are you talking about? Aside from your inherent presumptions of bad faith which you might like to reconsider - at no point has anyone made any form of attack against any editor. The reason that there are separate discussions is for the reason that just because one season in a given competition does not meet GNG does not mean others don't. Furthermore, no editor should take it upon themselves to just redirect a whole load of articles without discussion. Deletion does not mean that the article should be immediately created as a redirect, if there is no consensus to do so, so not sure why you have made the very pointy statement that if they are deleted you will recreate as redirects. The purpose of this discussion is not just whether something should be kept, but whether the term "The Atlantic Cup 2011 (football)" is a plausible search term. Current opinion in this discussion and the previous season's AfD would indicate that it is not and so as things stand, there is no consensus around notability nor that the title is a plausible search term. I would suggest that you just wait and see what consensus is rather than announcing what you will do if the discussion does not go as you desire it. Fenix down ( talk) 15:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply

- Okay, fair enough, i should not have threatened what I'd do if this didn't close as I wish. However, I was not advocating someone taking on redirecting articles without discussion, i was suggesting discussing it at the Talk page of the article, and seeking consensus given the prior AFD. The follow-on AFDs, i.e. the one on the main article and this one, seem unnecessary and negative to me. -- do ncr am 15:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to The Atlantic Cup (football) same reasons as do ncr am. I don't understand the difference between this tournament editions and the majority of the competitions listed on the articles Friendly association football tournaments in 2014 or Friendly association football tournaments in 2013 (e.g. 2013 Copa del Sol). The only difference seems to be the user who created the articles... Scblaster ( talk) 12:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - It is worth pointing out that there is currently an SPI taking place concerning the above user and the creator of the article under discussion here, ~~which may, of course be groundless~~ (it's not groundless, seems scblaster is a sock of Rpo.castro. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in AfDs. Fenix down ( talk) 13:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Whatever about any SPI. I sort of recall an ANI about the user, and i had the impression they were treated badly. All of that is irrelevant here.
About OTHERSTUFF: "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These comparisons may or may not be valid, but the invalid ones are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales." I think in the past that the quality in Wikipedia was much more varied, but now it is more even. And OTHERSTUFF argument, here, especially, seems quite valid. There seems to be a quite well-established practice and even treatment of football tournaments. -- do ncr am 18:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 22 February 2014 (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.