Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1998 Cyprus International Tournament

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!} 02:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Cyprus International Tournament[edit]

[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)

Out of process mainspace creation after Draft:1998 Cyprus International Tournament was declined. User does not respect consensus, so we're here. No evidence this tournament was notable, no viable AtD. Star Mississippi 01:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Cyprus. Star Mississippi 01:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: DoubleGrazing KylieTastic Star Mississippi 01:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I thought the lack of referencing was an oversight, but having tried searching, it turns out there simply aren't any sources. (Just out of curiosity, I also tried in Finnish, seeing as Finland was in the tournament; got less than a page of hits, all of them to various wikis only.) As a side note, it seems the intention may be to create an article for each year, but that probably isn't viable when even the parent article Cyprus International Football Tournament may fail on notability; certainly does ATM on referencing. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main reference was the RSSSF, an organisation described by German newspaper Der Spiegel as a "Wikipedia of football statistics", but there is also the footballdatabase.eu and 11v11.com, although the later does not have any reports of the Norway Olympic games. This is three references/sources I have named, it's got to be something. Clenixon (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - after this AfD, we may wish to review 2008 Cyprus Four Nations Football Tournament Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the catalyst of all this, and I personally think that Wikipedia shouldn't outcast non-notable pages. It should encompass as much as possible, as long as there are references and sources to prove its existence. If the problem is "needs more citations from reliable, independent sources", then I can add more sources, and you can even help me with that. I put many hours on this and tried to do everything right in order to get this pages online, but if it's not enough, please help me. Together we can enrich Wikipedia. (English is not my mother tongue, so be understandable). Clenixon (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is completely contrary to Wikipedia's policy outlined at WP:NOTDATABASE which says merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also see WP:N which links to WP:GNG which clearly explains that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Are you able to link to any significant media coverage of this tournament? If the answer is "no" then the article should be deleted or redirected to another article. WP:SPORTSEVENT also goes on to say that news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers). and Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... but then why are there so many Wikipedia articles who's news coverage isn't extensive and yet, exist. Clenixon (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - RSSSF, 11v11 and footballdatabase.eu are indiscriminate stats databases but Wikipedia is not itself supposed to be an indiscriminate sports stats database, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT per my response above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spider, there are many Wikipedia articles who's solely reference is the RSSSF. Clenixon (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, send those to AfD as well if no sources other than RSSSF exist for that subject and a search concludes that the article cannot be improved. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You little Spider... do you really think I will do that? Some of those pages exist for three or more years and have been providing information and knowledge to all those who have passed by, but now, just because it's "not-notable", it might get deleted. With all the respect, but I can't do that, I really can't. I need those pages to be online because it helps me for my works. I understand if you can't help me with this page, so I hope you will understand for not being able to help you destroy those pages. Clenixon (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clenixon: FWIW, my (entirely non-expert) take on the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument you're invoking is that if other articles indeed do exist which also flout the guidelines, that's no grounds for creating more similarly-offending articles; it's grounds for dealing with the existing ones to bring them in line with the rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Offending articles? I am just trying to enrich Wikipedia with articles of stuff that are true and even verifiable. I followed every rule (or at least I tried hard), but because it's not important and notable enough, it's "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Please help me with this, cause I have tried everything. I really want to understand how can I improve this article (and more similarly articles) and get it online. Clenixon (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest issue @Clenixon is that no amount of improvement can fix an article that doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. It's the subject that's the issue, not the state of the article. I need those pages to be online because it helps me for my works. is basically WP:ILIKEIT which is not a reason for inclusion.

Not to speak for @DoubleGrazing but offending article means articles that don't meet guidelines. Because others exist that haven't been handled doesn't mean we should create more. Star Mississippi 20:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. I understand.

Would it be too much to ask if the "Cyprus national football team results (2010–19)" is an article that meets the criteria for inclusion. Nearly every European national team has it. I would like to attempt to create this article. Is it possible? Could any of you review my submission when it's done? Clenixon (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it's clear. Sometimes things aren't. If you're on board with deletion this can be closed early. Happy to have it run seven days if you'd prefer.

I can't say for sure whether that would be notable, but I would be willing to review it once you've submitted it if others weigh in indicating it would be a potentially suitable topic. Draft space is almost certainly your best bet rather than creating it in mainspace. You can either ping me on the Draft talk or on my Talk page. Star Mississippi 22:10, 18 April 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.