Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Correcaminos UAT season

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!} 23:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Correcaminos UAT 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 sources for the actual season (matches etc.). Possibly copyvio. The Banner talk 09:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -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 the article contains only the matches for the club in question. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season.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) 16:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing your hasty addition of multiple sources, you were aware that what you did was in breach of their copyright notice. The Banner talk 19:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  False. There are several sources over the article: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a significant lack of prose coverage that addresses this particular football season of this particular club in detail. I understand that this is a club playing in the top tier but that does not make the article notable by default. GNG should be the priority. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 19 October 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.