Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup (football)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Cup (football)

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

Non-notable friendly football tournament, failing WP:GNG. Whilst there is coverage of the tournament in independent WP:RS, it is pretty much all routine match reports, or in local sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an annual event in its fourth year, televised on EuroSport, and there is coverage in news reports in addition to the televising, which itself is coverage. This AFD is apparently a follow-on to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup 2013 (football), where i agree that splitting out separate years is not ncessary, but a main article on the event should be kept (so i !voted "Merge"). --do ncr am 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being televised on EuroSport, who often televise fairly minor events, is not an indication of notability, and nor is any news coverage by EuroSport (which would be a primary source, given that they hold the TV rights). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a notable annual event with sources cited. Effort to delete smacks of Anglo-centric, American-centric view of the world and WP. (Just to be clear, I'm not from that part of the world, and even hate soccer/"association" football. Paavo273 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- That is a ridiculous accusation based on nothing whatsoever. You might as well say that the nominator is a radical feminist since most of the humans on those teams are of the male persuasion. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-centric is something you could potentially levy at me, but any attempt at looking at who I am would reveal that "American-centric" is clearly not going to apply. Equally, I would nominate any friendly tournament that appears to fail GNG, regardless of nationality, so in reality, your accusations are just hot air... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Lukeno94: You're right. My bad, esp. rel the Ami-centric. I'm gonna' stick with the keep vote though based on my first sentence. Please see my remarks @ your talk page.Paavo273 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The competition doesn't appear to get much coverage in English language sources (if any), but it gets just enough in foreign sources to convince me that it's notable enough to have an article. The individual iterations of this competition, however, are not sufficiently notable. – Pee Jay 01:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the tournament as a whole seems to get enough coverage to be considered notable; the individual years do not. Giant Snowman 18:24, 14 February 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.