Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:02, 2 December 2022

For American football, see WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Football (soccer). It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Football|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Football (soccer). For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Primary listing for deletion nominations is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. Items may be cross-listed here to allow automated archiving. (as of 2007-11-22)

Football

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Cruz Azul season

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 09:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed by user:Bruxton and includes 7 references/sources/links:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds (x3) that you are breaching copyrights. I hope I am wrong. The Banner talk 14:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF Reference is useful to structure the article, including two tables linked to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and the Matches round by round subsection, also the link is useful to create the crutial "position by round" table and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regards the squad, transfers and players statistics sections I used the source http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte05jn95b.html it covers the season 94-95 for the club. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this overly specified page. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed ~~(or will soon do)~~ as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just noticed this article re-added back. This was a notable season for the club, they were group two winners and in the play-off final for the Mexican Primera División. Sources for transfers should be collected and match reports. It really shouldn't be that hard. To delete and say it's not notable without doing the WP:BEFORE, or even trying to improve the article is a joke to the wikiproject. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 6. Note that the "per DRV" in the 28 November relist comment is a different DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article needs improvement, I'm convinced by the discussions at ANI/DRV that sourcing exists for this season. Star Mississippi 00:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. Article needs work but is very clearly notable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSEASONS states "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements." The team played in the top professional league in Mexico during this season. There are numerous sources describing what happened for the club. The presumption at AFD should be there is sufficient sourcing for summary articles of a top-level professional teams, and that votes to delete the article should demonstrate that no sources exist. --Enos733 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement is still correct. Remarkably, after so long at AfD, this is still a season article that contains no inline citations to reliable sources about the season. Per policy that needs to be corrected if this article is to be kept.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and S Marshall. There is still significant doubt that sources exist to the level required to demonstrate notability here, and significant amounts of the content is unverified. Daniel (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Season articles for teams in the top league in the continent are generally notable, and this article is not an exception. Good grief, they play in the capital, made it to the finals, and are arguably one of the biggest teams on the continent! There's no end of detailed articles, even though most sources aren't available online after a quarter-century. I've added 3 in-depth references to the article. This appears to be a massive WP:BEFORE failure from User:The Banner. Also, I don't know what either User:S Marshall and User:Daniel are thinking after other recent AFDs like WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Santos Laguna season. Also, could User:GiantSnowman review their (now 3-month old) delete vote, now that further sources have been added tot he article. Nfitz (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The most cursory Google search pulled this recap of Cruz Azul's playoff performance. Once I have some extra time, I'll look for similar coverage of the pre-playoff portion of the season, but based on the review of Santos Laguna's season (noted by Nfitz above), I'm very confident I will find more instances of SIGCOV. Editors !voting on the state of the sources included in the article (see above) should be heavily discounted as they haven't checked existing sources not cited. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2023 (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.

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. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Club Puebla season

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 09:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Club Puebla season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll let others decide the notability of this particular article, but articles like these are routinely kept. I'm not sure what the nom is saying about "without any sources for the season itself". This is the source for the long results table, another link, this, is now not working, but was the source for the two smaller tables above the large one. The article does need more sourcing, and I should have tagged it so. The squad, transfers, and several points in the summary all need refs. I would suggest draftifying would be in order to allow HugoAcosta9 to fix the issues. I would suggest draftifying all 3 of these articles.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time of nomination, at least all the matches were unsourced. Effectively copyvio, as RSSSF is copyright protected. Adding those sources later, is whitewashing copyvio. The Banner talk 08:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -The squad and transfers subsection was from http://puebla80s.blogspot.com/2014/12/equipo-puebla-1994-95.html it is a fan blog of course I've checked the info reviewing all the wikipedia pages of the players and it is accurate but I did not include as a reference due to wikipedia rules. Therefore if wikipedia players pages, in English and Spanish showed the info I can use it. Thanks Mister Onel5969 for the reviews. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links: [8],[9], [10], [11], RSSSF. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included.. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HugoAcosta9: Can you stop ruining the look of the page? This is another suggestion that you lack experience to contribute to Wikipedia! Sakiv (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HugoAcosta9, you can't vote multiple times on any AFD discussion. You can comment but you can only write "Keep" or "Delete" one time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Yes, there is some coverage but not of the quality or quantity to justify this overly specified page. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed ~~(or will soon do)~~ as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:43, 5 December 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.

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. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Toros Neza season

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 5 sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] (season itself subsection Matches), the first two regards the ban of Neza 86 stadium how the franchise changed its name for the 1994-95 season recovering its original denomination Toros Neza. The link number 3 is regarding to the coach, it is clearly how the link states he managed the team during the 1994-95 season. The reference 4 is a link of the goalkeeper, it was a player transferred in for the 1994-95 season. The reference number 6 is about Centre back defender Luis Carlos Perea it is clear how it states he played for the club during the 1994-95 season. Reference number 6 is linked to the 1994-95 Mexico season with RSSSF page, the structure of the article consisted of information about these tables (group and overall), matches, and goalscorers round by round. The link is a reference for the 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. Reference number 7 is linked to the squad statistics created on the article and states clearly the players of the team for the 1994-95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. Giant Snowman 18:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Toros Neza season and you reviewed during autumn, now the article is nominated to be deleted even it is properly sourced with 7 references. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are adding RSSSF everywhere. You know that page is copyright protected? The Banner talk 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how any of the sources provide in-depth analysis of Toros Neza for this season, which is what GNG would require. The only one that helps build the article is RSSSF but that's just pure results listings and doesn't contain any meaningful prose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. How many of these pages are these? Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Fram (talk · contribs) wrote "Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look..." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed ~~(or will soon do)~~ as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:42, 5 December 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.

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. ✗plicit 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italy '90 Soccer

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

Unnotable unofficial video game with only mentions in articles about the company itself. Gabe114 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Football. Gabe114 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find multiple reviews on Archive.org: Aktueller Software Markt, Videogame & Computer World, The Games Machine, Commodore Gazette, and MC Microcomputer. Meets GNG. Waxworker (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Waxworker and WP:NEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified above. Seems to be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waxworker, seems to be enough. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sources found by Waxworker. Timur9008 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waxworker. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. Giant Snowman 10:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. --El Pantera (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a WP:SNOWBALL now. Archrogue (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 6 December 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.

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. Star Mississippi 15:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Anzaldo

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

Article about former footballer who once played in the Mexican second tier but comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Best source available is trivial coverage of his promotion from the Puebla youth system here. PROD was removed because article was previously deleted via PROD (although the new version is not an improvement over the deleted version). Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 1 December 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fung Long Hin

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

Can't find any in-depth sourcing, but might be due to language barrier. Have requested several times through tagging and redirection for it to be improved, but editor refuses to provide enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hong Kong FC in the absence of sources that establish that the subject meets GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We usually don't redirect players to the team article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ideally, we should have a centralized discussion on whether redirection to team is appropriate for non-notable players in the aftermath of the removal of appearance-based criteria. I think there's cases to be made both for and against it, and was basing my !vote off of the BLARs in this page's history that led to the AfD. I'm ok with either redirection or deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  redirection is not a sensible idea generally, because the vast majority of players play for more than one team... Giant Snowman 19:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, editor here, I've deleted the "style of play" and other "unsourced" information off the page and it remains as it is for now. All references are sourced to the HKFA page which shows his correct statistics and appearances as shown in the Career stats table. I have removed un-cited sources and I've left the reliable sources cited there, I do not see why the page needs deletion. - Tildakcas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tildakcas (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline has already been linked above, WP:GNG. The issue is not the current content of the article but the apparent absence of significant prose coverage of the subject in independent secondary sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make that a bit clearer User:Tildakcas; references to statistics, and even a name-drop in a match report isn't enough. What you need is media coverage (like a newspaper article) that has lots of coverage about this player. You don't need to fix the article at this time; just give a couple of good URLs in this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per requested, I've complied a list of media coverage https://www.instagram.com/p/CjkBNC2Pd0K/, https://www.instagram.com/p/Cjmy5bmp8In/, https://today.line.me/hk/v2/article/1D0DN6E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tildakcas (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could possibly goto draft space, but this is really just a stub article. Can always been recreated in the future if need be. Def fails GNG. Govvy (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any significant coverage. Oppose redirect as it will become irrelevant and confusing to the reader when he leaves HKFC. It would be more useful to the reader for this not to be redirected anywhere. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 2 December 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Prtic

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

This should be uncontroversial. William Prtic is not a fully professional football player and he has never played in a higher division than the Swedish third tier. He is not a notable player and should not have his own page. Made an earlier attempt for a speedy deletion which for some reason was rejected. BarryHero (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can only PROD an article once no matter how ludicrous the DEPROD rationale is. Not being a player in a fully professional league isn't a reason for deletion anymore. He fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The sources in the article are a mention in a squad list, two press releases from the sponsor of an award he won and a stats page. The Mitt I Täby source is a 404. Dougal18 (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Mitt i Täby article can be accessed through Mediearkivet, the dominating Swedish media archive. It's a 274 words long article in a local newspaper, focused on Prtic. I'd suggest you treat it like a print source. I'd say it decently verifies what it's meant to verify. It's not WP:GNG material, though. /Julle (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The old NFooty would have killed this on the spot, even know this player appears in serval databases, this is still a fail. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding so little on this player outside the databases, I haven't even been able to confirm he exists, which is unusual for an article of an active player. (I'm sure he does, given the database sources). The PROD was apparently deleted, because the reason for the PROD didn't address any relevant criteria - but that doesn't seem very pragmatic User:Ortizesp! Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 6 December 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany v France (1982 FIFA World Cup)

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

This article consists primarily of several paragraphs of badly cited game description. Even if the missing citations were added, there is nothing that couldn't be covered as a section in 1982 FIFA World Cup knockout stage (which is threadbare anyway). Compare similar sections which exist for eventful and controversial games such as South Korea vs Italy at the 2002 FIFA World Cup and Spain vs South Korea at the 2002 FIFA World Cup.

It may have contained the "most horrific challenge in World Cup history" (and it probably was, I am not disputing that) but that part can also be covered in (at most) a section of the tournament's knockout stage and in the respective player biographies. There is no need for a separate page for every game that includes a horrific challenge.

Platini's personal description of the game can likewise be covered adequately in his biography.

That it is "regarded as one of the best football matches of all time"? This may be so, but it is a very strong claim for only one citation.

There is no need to have separate pages unless the article is of the length and detail of, for example, Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) – which this most definitely is not. I would also suggest that, since there have now been three World Cups since this page was created, there appears to be little interest in improving it, even when the attention of the football world is on this tournament and its history.

Note too that one of the sources used for this game refers to the challenge on Battiston as a World Cup "stunning" moment. Yet there are many such moments. Down that page (on the left side) there is another "stunning" moment involving teeth, namely Luis Suárez eating a piece of Italian footballer. Wikipedia does not have a separate page for "Italy v Uruguay (2014 FIFA World Cup)" - it is covered adequately at 2014 FIFA World Cup Group D#Italy vs Uruguay (munch of it focusing on what Suárez did with his teeth - which, it says, led to the longest ban in World Cup history.) The Middle E 🐫 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, France, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks as if the only policy/guideline deletion concerns raised in this nomination concern notability. It seems to me that the references already in the article are sufficient for GNG.[17][18][19] Is that no longer relevant for football matches? Thincat (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom points to three other matches in fairly recent World Cup competitions as reasons NOT to have this article, but WP:OSE cannot be a valid argument (something I myself was recently reminded of in a content dispute). The 2014 Italy–Uruguay match was significant only for the Suárez incident, and the 2002 matches had questionable officiating, for which I am shocked and/or appalled! Questionable officiating at the World Cup? Le gasp! This match as a whole is notable for having been the first World Cup match decided by penalty kicks as well as the flurry of goals in extra time. Could the article be improved? Absolutely, but the match clearly meets WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This game appears to have above ordinary coverage, especially over the other matches mentioned by the nominator. On top of the refs listed by Thincat, there are numerous sources that cover the match in depth, see [20], [21], [22], [23] [24] and that's before the Battiston incident only refs. I think WP:GNG is comfortably met here. Kosack (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources above clearly show notability. Giant Snowman 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although, to me the article is a little bit underwhelming, it could be expanded easily. This game easily passes WP:NSPORTSEVENT in my opinion. This feels like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for some reason. Govvy (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination focuses on references (which they call "sources"), not on sources per WP:NEXIST. There are vast amounts of potential sources for this article. If nominator wants to improve the article, AfD is not the correct procedure per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. WP:N is no concern for this article. WP:SNOW does apply. gidonb (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:26, 6 December 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–South Korea football rivalry

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

Fails WP:GNG. A quick before shows the article is riddled with unreliable sources, and primary sources. The article literally has only five sources, the first one is dead (teammelli.com), the second one is a random totally unreliable website (taegukwarriors.com), the third source is a 2013 archive of FIFA itself, the fourth source (CNN) and fifth source (espn.in) doesn't talk about any rivalry between Iran and South Korea. Google results showed up routine coverage from a few sports sites. If anyone can uncover some significant, and or in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG, I would be happy to withdraw. TatesTopG (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2022

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, South Korea, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably delete The article title is completely miss-leading, this is just a head to head stats page. WP:NOSTATS apply. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NRIVALRY.LibStar (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable rivalry, only source in the article that uses the term is a primary source [25]. Fails WP:NRIVALRY, and is just a head-to-head stats lists, which isn't needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NRIVALRY. This reads more as a list of results between the two national teams, but also fails WP:NLIST. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adding these kinds of "rivalries" to Wikipedia would litter it with content that belongs more in a forum. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a rivalry, certainly not notable. Giant Snowman 19:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero background information according to what, who and why is this match a rivalry, its a made-up "rivalry" just because they played a couple of important matches in the past; the article is also basically just a list of head-to-head matches and nothing else, thus failing both WP:NSTATS and WP:NRIVALRY. Its true that the FIFA source (#3 in the article) calls it "the two sides have developed one of Asia's greatest rivalries", but its based solely on many matches played. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable subject Bruxton (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Delete’’’ topic lacks both notability and sources. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:25, 5 December 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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran v United States (2022 FIFA World Cup)

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

Crazy WP:CRYSTALBALL that this match will be notable. Everything else is WP:ROUTINE. We don't highlight every football matches, only those with a legacy, such as finals of major competitions, or freak scorelines. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Iran, and United States of America. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran vs United States. This reads like a news/opinion piece and most of it is about the 1998 game, but some info like the bruhaha about the flag on Twitter and the match security can be mentioned in the section on the group article (which now just consists of two short sentences), along with a match report when the game actually happens. Not seeing much evidence of the in-depth coverage required to justify a standalone article at the moment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Does not warrant an own article. If something happens, that deserves an article, it will be done but not now. Kante4 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need a redirect for every World Cup match? Just delete it. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine group stage match with no major storylines (like there may have been in the 1998 match). I oppose a merge/redirect because "Iran v United States (2022 FIFA World Cup)" is an unlikely search term. People looking for the match would be more likely to go to the World Cup page (or Group B page) to find the match report there. Frank Anchor 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything about this doesn't deal with the not-yet-played match or its players and should be a sub-paragraph in section 12 of Iran–United States relations. Maybe...wait for the actual game to play out before creating an article? Nate • (chatter) 17:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold This is a valid draft towards a match to be played in under 24 hours, has no one consider a merge with United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup) ? Also, this is down to the outcome of the result, and what political, social echoes come from the match. Those delete votes really need to look at the bigger picture and not just the game. A different rivalry article could be constructed with the two matches now. Govvy (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm asking for a deletion of everything not to do with the actual 22 men on the field playing the game; if something really does happen tomorrow that's on par with the 1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Final, then yes, article justified and some of this belongs there for sure. But the thing the title described actually has to happen first. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating this article, I thought of continuing the 1998 article. But it can be only if the 1998 page is moved. Maxaxa (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But, like why create an article about a match that isn't yet notable? If it ends up a 9-0 win today, it'd likely warrant its own article. If not, it simply isn't notable enough. I'm not entirely convinced the 98 match is independently notable from the tournament either. There might be scope for a mention more in the US-Iran relations article as these articles have very little to do with football and what actually happens. We should be trying to expand our existing articles, such as the Group B article with a match summary before splitting into individual articles (especially over something that is yet to happen). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the match happens. Unless the match itself is extraordinary, then delete this. Two countries having political feelings towards each other doesn't make the match between them notable. United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup) was a big upset, whereas even if Iran win this match today, it wouldn't be much of an upset (both team are close in the FIFA World Rankings.) Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be allowed due to the fact that this game is significant for 24 years. 2603:8080:A00:6A34:801C:A954:5B41:1F4A (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the year isn't 2046, so that seems unlikely. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Group matches in FIFA are run of the mill and not notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable before the match started and non-notable after the match ended. — Chevvin 21:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest the match deserves a separate article. Important information can be instead transferred to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran 0–1 United States. Rennespzn (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran 0–1 United States Now that the match has been played it was unexceptional; whatever else went on should go to Iran–United States relations. Nate • (chatter) 22:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to redirect an “unexceptional” match to the Group Stage article unless that is done for all matches played (which would be a ridiculous waste of time). A straight delete is the better option. Frank Anchor 01:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the match was unexceptional, and any controversy leading up to the match can be covered in 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B or Iran–United States relations. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The match itself lacks the notability to be an article. As others have pointed out, the controversy surrounding it can be covered in other sections, not an article. Ardije (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Specific group matches generally aren't notable, even though the World Cup may be. The match itself isn't especially noteworthy, being a 0–1 win for the U.S., and is sufficiently covered in 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran 0–1 United States. As Vilenski says above, the match might've been notable if it were a 0–9 win, but nothing of the sort happened.
Most of the information in this article is only tangentially related to the match, which depending on one's viewpoint violates WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, and/or WP:NOTNEWS. The reason I'm !voting "delete" rather than "redirect" is that, if you take out the irrelevant information in question, there is literally nothing worth merging. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not Merge to United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup). Not notable for a standalone article. Rylesbourne (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now the game has been played, which now has a result, I would say the only routine thing is the football, the other political backdrop behind the game does seem to be covered in other articles. I see no need to merge content over. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean because the US won the article must be deleted and the 1998 article must be kept because Iran won? Maxaxa (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the Legacy section (along with a lot more of the article) is incredibly POV. It looks very likely to be deleted from the above, but I am worried about the amount of views for a current event written like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried to clean up the article a bit, but this is very much smells of WP:RECENTISM to me. While there definitely were odd things surrounding this match that wouldn't have occurred had the two teams not been from countries with such a fraught relationship, there is not a whole lot suggesting this has long term notability. A more comprehensive rewrite is needed if kept. TartarTorte 14:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for a redirect as an unlikely search term. Non-notable match. Any information regarding the lead-up or aftermath of the match is already present at 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B, and any additional prose can be added there. Jay eyem (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair play: Why all parts of the article indicating the notability of the match in world media are deleted? They were not sourced? The sources are not reliable?--Maxaxa (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's all WP:ROUTINE coverage. Articles are supposed to be independently notable from parent articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I am the vandal who created the article. Given the media attention the match attracted, works devoted to the match are forthcoming and they will make a separate article inevitable. Hurry up, time is running out. Love you, the world cup was more fun with you.--Maxaxa (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B per reasons by others. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxaxax Why are you calling yourself a vandal? Also, the article doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't create an article for every match in the World Cup -- or in any other competition for that matter -- and there is nothing extraordinarily unique about this match that warrants an article either. The fact that some people chose to see (or seed) political overtones isn't a notable for an article. Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup riots

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

We aren't a news ticker, riots happen every day, and this article suggests things happening at the event, rather than just because of it. The item is mentioned (briefly) on 2022 FIFA World Cup, so no merge is neccesary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. One person injured and 11 people arrested is not going to generate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Oppose a redirect since the name is misleading, it implies they were riots at the World Cup itself. If kept, should be moved to a more sensible name like 2022 Belgium and Netherlands riots. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another !vote for WP:NOTNEWS. Many, many football matches (both local and international) are followed by an amount of public disorder and unless this is ongoing / causes significant damage then no need for separate article on WP. Spike 'em (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CPORfan (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you on about? Did you just feel the need to argue with someone for the fun of it? Spike 'em (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, and ye, the title is really miss-leading. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passing mention on the main tournament article is more than sufficient -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per WP:NOTNEWS. Frank Anchor 17:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Dumb people burn things after football team loses in big tourney' is pretty much WP:MILL and expected. Nate • (chatter) 18:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all of your opinions, as I'm the official uploader of this.PopularGames (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 😒 Then why create the article in the first place if you thought it would be deleted?! I'd love to place the db-author up so we don't have to burn seven days on this, but hopefully someone with a second opinion thinks the same thing. Nate • (chatter) 20:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DB-G7 does not apply, as there have been multiple authors who have made substantial contributions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. It's too bad this can't be early-closed as no CSD criteria apply. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This stuff happens all of the time and it's not worth making a full article about, as there's also probably not much information. If we had articles for each of these there'd be a new article every day about England and Mexico fans going wild Tumford14 (talk) 8:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete per above. ronintalk 08:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably leaning towards delete. I've done a little to try and improve the page (the previous title was problematic) but I don't think there is much more to add, notability-wise. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable.Muur (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a riot at the World Cup, not notable. Giant Snowman 19:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor sourcing, arbitrary selection as far as I know. A random and very, very odd thing. But delete it anyway. CPORfan (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article violates WP:NOTNEWS. According to the article itself, at least one person got injured and 11 people got arrested. This is called a protest, and it happens quite often when a team loses a football match. I don't see any evidence that this protest will have a long-lasting impact. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early to think the event will have any significant impact or aftermath. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 World Cup. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Seung-min

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

Article about former footballer who made a single K League 1 appearance, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage online (with blurbs like this in Jjan.kr the best I could find. PROD was removed without providing any indication that SPORTBASIC could be met. Jogurney (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than playing a few professional matches Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 3 December 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Callebaut

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

Article about former footballer who made four appearances for KV Mechelen, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage online (with this very short blurb the best I could find. PROD was removed without providing any indication that SPORTBASIC could be met.Jogurney (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found GVA and RTBF in addition to the above but it's not enough for SPORTBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 3 December 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.

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. Star Mississippi 22:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Alemán

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about former footballer who now plays beach football. His football career involved a handful of appearances in the Mexican second level, and consistent with the initial AfD in 2017, there is no significant coverage available (newer coverage focuses entirely on his beach football career, but nothing is in-depth just match reports like this and a quick blurb like this. Article probably should have been deleted back in 2017, but it's crystal clear after WP:NSPORTS2022 that it fails our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best article I can find is gob.sv but it's just a quote from him and doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:53, 27 November 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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Bortă

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

Footballer who played a couple of seasons in Moldova then disappeared. Even a Romanian language source search comes up with nothing decent about him. WP:SPORTBASIC specifically states that database profile pages do not confer notability. Best sources that I can find are Mold Football and Publika both of which only mention Bortă once and fall way short of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Moldova. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:11, 25 November 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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Duah Kwaku

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

Can't find anything to suggest that he meets criteria. The only sources that I can find are stats sites like Soccerway and Global Sports Archive so looks like a failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage outside of database entries, although there is coverage of a different footballer named Kwaku Duah - [26]. Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any coverage only profile pages and related name Oloriebi 13:44, 1 December 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hélder Arruda

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

Can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. He played 43 mins of professional football and then disappeared. Local paper Açoriano Oriental is one of the shortest transfer announcements that I've ever seen. Portugoal has 2 sentences on him. I searched him up on ProQuest and found some trivial mentions which also don't count towards notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Best I could find is this short page from Rádio e Televisão de Portugal. Still, I don't think this will save the article from deletion. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe another 2 like that would be enough? Giant Snowman 21:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's a decent source but not enough on its own. Please ping me if another source with the same amount of depth but with different content is found. The source would need to be completely independent too of course. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination. Doesn't appear to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Govvy (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 06:40, 28 November 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.

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 redirect to Northern Tasmanian Football Association (formed 1996). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meander Valley Suns

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

AFD as PROD is contested. The team is not notable enough, it didn't pass WP:NSPORTS. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Australia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern Tasmanian Football Association (formed 1996). The only sources I can find are routine coverage, and there's hardly any of that to be found. It would be almost impossible to make a proper article out of this. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS.LibStar (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per OliveYouBean as ATD. Deus et lex (talk) 11:04, 7 December 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.

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. Legoktm (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brammen

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

Created for 45 minutes of pro-level play in 2016. Best I could find is this (paywalled) interview, rest are match reports in the local press. Fails GNG. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Doctor Duh: And you don't think the German wiki article de:Jonas Brammen passes GNG either? Govvy (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy - heh, that's certainly something I'll remember to check next time, looks like he received more attention in the very early stages of his career. But I think the argument for deletion still doesn't fall apart from this; I see only the first two cites on the de.wiki article (1, 2) as plausibly contributing to a claim to notability, but the first one is just a short interview and they're both filed under "Lokalsport", which I don't think I need to translate. We'll see how this plays out with additional community input, but I promise to be more inquisitive in the future... Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Govvy. I found [27], [28], [29], [30], among many many more German sources from nw.de, rp-online.de, westfalen-blatt.de, owl-journal.de, sport1.de, radioguetersloh.de, wn.de, welt.de. kicker.de etc. Player with ongoing career and experience in the fully professional German second and third tiers. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above references provided, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. All I could find were interviews, match reports and brief mentions that don't go to passing GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 28 November 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.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Cruz_Azul_season}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Club_Puebla_season}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Toros_Neza_season}}