Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Santos Laguna season

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 20:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Santos Laguna season[edit]

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

1994–95 Santos Laguna season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(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 09:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I created The article 1994-95 Santos Laguna 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) 20:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links:[1], [2], [3], [4], and 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) 16:56, 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, 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 Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. 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. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 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, 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 Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. 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. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 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, 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 Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. 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. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to repeat yourself three times when protecting your own article. The Banner talk 17:31, 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, also the link is useful to create the crutial "position by round" table. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:GiantSnowman, Jogurney has found added a couple of SIGCOV to the article, and listed below. And I've added some other supporting references, and flushed out some of the irrelevant references and material in the article. Can you review your vote? Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up! GiantSnowman 18:29, 8 December 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 by wikipedia users now is censored using unknown terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:20, 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) 17:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm simply pointing out a simple fact, which is that there is no evidence of significant coverage for this season. RSSSF doesn't count. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet again, sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. Delete this trivia! The sheer number of these pages demonstrates that this is too specific and obscure. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:53, 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 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which come from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:46, 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) 01:45, 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 22:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was previously placed on hold. Relisting to enable a full week of discussion to take place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WaggersTALK 10:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have just reopened and relisted this discussion following my close yesterday due to a request on my talk page. For reference, here is my closing statement:

The result was delete. This discussion seems to have become quite heated, perhaps due to events elsewhere on the project. It's sad to see that there are lots of accusations flying around, bordering on personal attacks. My role as closer is to ignore that and find arguments that relate specifically to the matter in hand.

The central question in this discussion is whether the supplied sources are sufficient to demonstrate that the subject satisfies the General Notability Guideline, i.e. multiple sources providing significant coverage of the subject. Those preferring deletion - and there are more of those than keep !votes - assert that the sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject itself. Those preferring keep talk about the format of one source in particular, and talk about the behaviour of the nominator elsewhere on the project, but do not refute the assertion that the coverage in the sources fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements for significance.

So despite the apparently contentious nature of this discussion and the commentary on various other issues within it, the overriding consensus is quite clearly in favour of deleting the article.

The request on my talk page pointed out that this discussion has been on hold to allow a related DRV to take place, and asked for it to be relisted to allow a full week for discussion to take place.
As observed in my statement above, some of the comments on this discussion so far have fallen short of our civility policy. I hope that improves in the discussion below; please be warned that I (and/or other admins) will likely take firm action if it does not. WaggersTALK 10:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what's here is already sourced to a reliable source that directly deals with the subject - see [5]. The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation is pretty much the gold-standard for such references. What's your concern with that User:BusterD - it's bog standard for many, many, articles. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that such a work by itself does not constitute multiple independent reliable secondary sources which directly detail the subject. IMHO the link you provided consists of accumulated routine sporting results, a tertiary source. I didn't say the page was fiction. I said without adequate trusted sources, it might as well be fiction. I asserted that sources must exist, but that's my opinion. And I've also asserted that a merge redirect is fine with me. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the (more than) adequate source though to prove it's not fiction. I'm confused why you believe that sources must exist, but you vote delete. That seems to be against the policy of WP:ATD which requires improvement rather than deletion if the article is believed to be notable. I'm about to go on a deep dive or sources; can you tell me User:BusterD where you have already looked, to save me the trouble? Thanks - Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RSSSF is literally pure stats with zero independent secondary commentary, it is nowhere close to contributing to GNG. Information existing in a database does not mean a topic is notable, obviously, and even actual prose coverage of the individual matches would be discounted by NOTNEWS, ROUTINE, etc. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article's existence (obviously) doesn't hinge on the RSSSF reference. BusterD expressed a concern that "if it's not accurately sourced, it might as well be pure fiction". The general consensus for an article for the season of a team in one of the top leagues in the world is that there exists suitable references to meet GNG. How, JoelleJay, is this article any different from many other seasons articles (that all meet WP:NSEASONS such as 1994–95 Crystal Palace F.C. season which contain less prose, and far less references, than this one. The only difference I can discern is that team is English. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amount of prose and number of references are irrelevant if there isn't any SIGCOV of the topic. The other sources cited in the article are worthless for notability since none of them contain SIGCOV and only the database ones even mention the season at all. So, considering RSSSF has been the only source proffered since the relist, it does appear the article's existence at AfD hinges on it, and I am pointing out that it does zilch to address the reason for deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you are aware, AFD isn't based on the sources that are in the article, but the sources that could potentially be in the article. As I mentioned above I'm doing a deep dive into the sources. Can you tell me User:JoelleJay where you have already looked, to save me the trouble? I've already removed and replaced those (lousy) references that didn't mention the season. BTW, why do you think there wouldn't be significant coverage for a season of a team in one of the top leagues in the world, given how football-mad the Mexican media is? How is this different than, say, Crystal Palace ... we have scores of teams each year in England that we think are significant - even though significant sources are frequently not listed in articles. Thanks - Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I presume coverage exists when a BEFORE didn't turn up anything for me, or you, or anyone else in two months? AfD is where sources are supposed to be produced, and nothing was forthcoming until Jogurney searched some archives that you yourself failed to find anything in. That said, I don't see how coverage of preseason activities is in-depth treatment of the topic of the article, which is the actual season itself...? JoelleJay (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the thought that the coverage of the pre-season tour of Colombia may not actually be about the season, however I think it is. When I read coverage of sports club seasons (not just football), there is always discussion of arrivals and departures of players and staff and there is always discussion of the pre-season tours. Also, I wouldn't discount the Medio Tiempo coverage of the play-offs. Note that each of these articles were written years after the conclusion of the season (so it's apparent that the season was noticed outside of routine/contemporaneous coverage). I'd like to find a recap of the portion of the season prior to the play-offs (the club finished top of its group which is an achievement), but I haven't spent more than 10 minutes looking yet. Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And see the references below - SIGCOV is met. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I quickly found this in-depth coverage of the Laguneros' performance in the quarter-finals. If I can have a day or two more, I'm quite certain there is in-depth recaps of this season elsewhere. Jogurney (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a good one - I'll add it to the article. I'm doing some major work on it. I remain puzzled on why some think there wouldn't have been significant coverage. Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an in-depth recap of the club's pre-season activities, including discussion of player arrivals and departures and a pre-season tournament in Colombia. It's solid enough with the Medio Tiempo article to get to SIGCOV on their own. El Siglo de Torreón covers Santos Laguna regularly, so a stroll through their archives will certainly uncover more in depth coverage of the season. Jogurney (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing work! I'd found their archive, but I wasn't having much success mining it. You are a lot more proficient at this than me! Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El Siglo also had in-depth coverage of the club's managerial change during the season here. This piece does a brief recap of the first of the season as well. The unfortunate thing is El Siglo's online archive isn't working, so I had to manually search to even find that article - everything else that's available is from the 2000's or later. Jogurney (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I am inclined to keep the article, it has some sources on it, I tried to find sources for football player transfers, but alas, didn't do very well. Had a go at a little cleanup, it still feels a mess. Mexican football really isn't my thing know. But it feels like it passes the mark for general GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more sources to the article and did some copyediting so it's not as much of a mess. I don't like some of the prose, but it's more NPOV or based on the sources now. Jogurney (talk) 03:49, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Santos_Laguna_season&oldid=1127085100"