Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Toros Neza season: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:54, 5 December 2022

1994–95 Toros Neza season

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (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]
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]
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.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 *'''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. [[User:Spiderone|<span style="color: #996600">Spiderone</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Spiderone|<span style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)</span>]]</sup> 17:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Delete.''' Sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. How many of these pages are these? [[User:Doczilla|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">Doczilla</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Doczilla|<small>@SUPERHEROLOGIST</small>]]</sub> 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
+*'''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 <s>(or will soon do)</s> 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.