Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Copa Catalunya

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

I closed a discussion on this article earlier this week as no consensus, on the basis of plenty of !votes but no actual policy based arguments. One of the participants has requested I relist the nomination in the hope that policy based arguments would be articulated. As it's been a few days I've chosen to start a new discussion rather than re-open the old one. As a procedural nomination I am Neutral as to whether the article ought to be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found to indicate the notability of the subject. None of the other Copa Catalunya season articles have sources either, so they should probably all go unless there's a major turnaround before the end of this AfD. If that change occurs, someone let me know so I can change my !vote. – Pee Jay 13:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to expand on my identical !vote on the first AFD - the relevant guideline here is WP:SPORTSEVENT, while WP:NSEASONS also applies. Both ask for "well-sourced prose" of which there is none in this article (or related), and there is no evidence that any of the individual seasons of this competition have been covered in detail by reliable sources i.e. they also fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails criteria #3 of WP:NOT#STATS. The single reference used in the article does not establish NOTABILITY for the subject. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the 2005-06 Copa Catalunya season in any detail. I agree that the other seasons should be nominated for deletion also. The article lacks context, and could easily be summarize in a one line listing in the Copa Catalunya article. It escapes my comprehension why an encyclopedia should have detailed sports stats, images of flags, and especially paper doll images of teams uniforms with almost no prose whatsoever. I also endorse the other convincing arguments made by GiantSnowman and PeeJay2K3.- Mr X 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, unlikely that sufficient sourced prose could be written based on reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have been well covered in the Catalan media at the time. El Mundo Deportivo covered in detail. For example, the final is on page 1 of their September 6, 2006 edition [1], page 2 [2], page 3 [3], and page 4 [4]. Meets WP:GNG Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – GNG states "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." so there is no indication from your comment, Nfitz, that GNG is satisfied. C 679 20:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one were to believe that no other Catalan source covered it, then that would be a valid point. However, the coverage is so extensive in that one source, it's beyond question it would have been covered elsewhere. And it was ... [5]. I admit though, finding Catalan articles on the web a decade later is a challenge. On any subject! Do you doubt there wouldn't have been significant coverage in El Punt, El Periódico, or El 9 Esportiu; none of which unfortunately contain on-line archives back that far? Nfitz (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of my doubt, it's your unsupported assertion it meets GNG without evidence why you believe that to be the case. FWIW I have read the elpais link (via google translate) and it seems to be sufficient for the Copa Catalunya, but not particularly useful or relevant to the 2005–06 competition. If you don't have any sources for any part of the competition beyond the final, the only logical conclusion is to detail the final at the cup main page and to delete the season article. C 679 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's are sources for other parts of competition. Some are listed at the Catlan version of the page. Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. C 679 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normal season article. Another seasons are: 2010–11 Copa Catalunya, 2012–13 Copa Catalunya, 2013–14 Copa Catalunya. It is a very strange to delete one season article and keep all another. NickSt (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this opinion seems to be at direct odds with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The more appropriate argument would be that if this AfD results in deletion then the others should be AfD'd as well if they do not appear to meet GNG. Not sure what you mean by "normal season article" either, it isn't really one covered by WP:NSEASONS, so definitely needs to show GNG clearly. Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per rationale given by GiantSnowman above. Fails WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Nick and Nfitz above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.