- 2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
It's the next season. Nearly all leagues which send teams to this are running. So it's already linked from many of those. In fact the first teams already have qualified (see updated article in user-space). Unrelated: Men's equivalent article exists a year now. -Koppapa (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow userfication- nothing wrong with the close, consensus to delete was clear. But consensus at the AfD was also to allow re-creation at the proper time. The closing statement said "will userfy on request", so why did you not contact the closing administrator first instead of coming here? Reyk YO! 12:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did contact him, got it userfyd, then expanded and waited. Contacted another admin to restore, who said I'd have to to through deletion review now. The article should be reinstated to main-space. -Koppapa (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Be Bold - if the first teams have qualified and a reliable source can be cited that they have qualified for this edition of the tournament, not just finished in the position that granted entry to this year's edition, then it seems the WP:CRYSTAL concerns from the AfD have been answered. Fenix down (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Cryptic for notifying me of this discussion. As Koppapa stated, I userfied this article to them it back in July, see User:Koppapa/2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. I can't imagine why the other admin recommended Deletion Review. You could have just asked me. All that is necessary IMO is for me to look at the new version, compare it to the previous article, and see if it is sufficiently improved that it won't be subject to WP:G4 deletion. If I find it is sufficiently different / improved, I will put a note on the talk page saying so, and the user will be free to move it to mainspace. I'll go do that now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I see that you have added six teams - four generic, only two with an actual team name and citation - and that is all. Otherwise it is the same article, right down to "Dates TBA". Can we not get a little more information than this, before moving it to mainspace? I am afraid this would be regarded as not sufficiently different from the deleted article, and I can't guarantee it wouldn't be speedy-deleted per G4. If you want to consult with someone more familiar with association football than I am, they might advise you differently. Maybe having two teams qualified is enough to satisfy WP:CRYSTAL, indicating that the process has started? Fenix down, what do you think about that? --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the draft, I would suggest it is not in a state to survive either G4 or another AfD. I accept that it is the premier European women's continental football tournament and is highly unlikely not to go ahead, but in its current state, I would expect to see at least the following:
- The rules for the tournament properly referenced, currently they are essentially conjecture
- For the two teams references that actually confirm their qualification for this tournament.
- As far as I can see, these sources only confirm the clubs won their national titles, not that they have qualified for this tournament. It can reasonably be implied that they have, but it doesn't help that their are no sources in the article that mention this specific iteration of the tournament, as this makes it easy for someone to AfD as not receiving sufficient coverage yet.
- If this could be done, I think there is sufficient to confirm that this tournament is definitely going ahead and that there is already a degree of coverage on it. Fenix down (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Fenix. To Koppapa, I think the answer here is that the article is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. When you have added more information and more sources, covering the points mentioned by Fenix down, you can check with me again, or better yet, check with Fenix down for a more technically-informed opinion. Fenix is an administrator and can give you a perfectly valid clearance to restore, without even needing to check with me. Please understand: what we are trying to avoid here is, we don't want the article to be restored too early and get deleted a second time. That looks bad in the history, and if it happens too often it can even lead to a block on the article being restored at all. Don't give up, it will be restored when there is enough coverage, and enough confirmed information, to meet Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, i know how to proceed then. This review can be closed, if needed. -Koppapa (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
