Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 National Masters

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 merge to Masters Football. This decision does not imply that Masters Football is notable. J04n(talk page) 11:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 National Masters[edit]

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

Unsourced article with very little interest value. The Masters tournaments are a novelty event shown on Sky Sports so people can see their clubs' former players attempt to extend their careers, not anything serious. – Pee Jay 00:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 00:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY and I've not been able to find any coverage, anywhere, so it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to Masters Football or similar. GiantSnowman 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same argument for Masters Football, now you mention it: that doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG, either. Dricherby (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's broadcast on national TV, I would say it meets GNG! GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ROUTINE: routine coverage of sports events does not establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The entire tournament is shown on TV. How is that "routine" coverage?! Giant Snowman 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:ROUTINE before asking how something is or is not routine. It specifically states that "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." The coverage you're talking about is planned and the matches are pre-scheduled. Dricherby (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, I completely forgot about all the spontaneous football matches that appear out-of-the-blue on TV, thanks for point that out to me... Giant Snowman 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think I'm misunderstanding or misapplying WP:ROUTINE, it would be helpful if you'd explain what you think it actually means in this context. Dricherby (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        A five-line match report on the BBC website = ROUTINE. An entire tournament being broadcast on national TV = not ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 09:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It is routine in the sense of "We always broadcast an hour of six-a-side football on Wednesday evenings" (or how ever long it is, on whatever day), i.e., "It is our habit or routine to broadcast [...]" Compare the broadcase of football matches (these ones or even the Premier League) with nightly news bulletins. With football, the timing and content is decided in advance (as you say, there are no spontaneous football matches that appear out-of-the-blue on TV); with news, the broadcaster has a routine of showing half an hour of news at 6pm every day but the actual content of the news bulletins is not decided in advance (e.g., spontaneously and largely out-of-the-blue, Margaret Thatcher died). Furthermore, notability generally requires multiple secondary sources. Even if consensus accepts the TV broadcasts as a source, that's only one source and it's primary. In either case, we need more sources and I, for one, have not been able to find them. Dricherby (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The notability of Masters Football is not actually under discussion here; if you doubt it, you may wish to open an AfD. Giant Snowman 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Any argument about the non-notability of Masters Football in general applies a fortiori to the specific cases of the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons of Masters Football, the articles under discussion at this AfD. Dricherby (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest - see AfDs about non-league club's season articles. The club is notable, their season in the 9th tier of non-league football is not. Terrible argument. Giant Snowman 12:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. If X (for example, Masters Football) is not notable, then "X in 2009" is certainly not notable (the a fortiori argument above). You're addressing the opposite case which is that if X is notable, then "X in 2009" is, as you say, not necessarily notable. Dricherby (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But Masters Football is notable. What are you even trying to argue here? GiantSnowman 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not productive to go round this circle yet again. Dricherby (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and also Masters Football. This appears to be about a six-a-side competition for superannuated professional footballers (over 35). Since (with a few exceptions) footballers have retired from the professional game by that age, it is strictly an amateur competition, probably devised to fill up space on a satellite channel. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible to be professional without being in one of the main leagues: if the footballers are paid for their time, it's not amateur. But I agree with the rest of your analysis. Dricherby (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the parent article, Masters Football. I don't think that articles should be added to a deletion-discussion halfway through the discussion, so if anyone wants to delete Masters Football, that should be discussed in a separate AfD after this one is closed. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Masters Football. Only the finals results I think would be needed to say about each season. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2013 (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.