Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football at the 2015 Military World Games

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. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2015 Military World Games[edit]

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

Non-notable football tournament, which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. An identical AfD in the past Football at the 2011 Military World Games was redirected. JMHamo (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. JMHamo (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football at the Military World Games per the precedent cited by JMHamo. This is a non-notable tournament failing WP:GNG. Merging is not necessary as all the pertinent information in already included. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to be honest I don't see what purpose a redirect would have. Giant Snowman 19:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The competition represent one of many events of the 2015 Military World Games. It is a part of the Military World Games (6th edition) and also of the World Military Cup (45th edition), both organised by the International Military Sports Council (Football events at the 6th Military World Games - Official website of the 2015 MWG). --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, it has received plenty of significant coverage from reliable sources. A quick Google News search shows that but here are some sources for Algeria's triumph: Le Matin, El Watan, Huffington Post Maghreb, Algeria Press Service, DZFoot, etc. Coverage for Egypt courtest of KingFut, Saudi newspaper Sports KSA, French coverage on Le Republicain, etc. TonyStarks (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is in-depth, significant coverage to satisfy GNG... JMHamo (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found this doing quick 30 second search on Google. There's tons of sources that covered this competition, so you can find plenty of in-depth, significant coverage if you bother looking, so yes it does satisfy GNG. TonyStarks (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Match reports are not good enough... JMHamo (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-match report articles: Fabrice Abriel, ancien joueur de l’OM, rejoint lui aussi l’armée, Source : Jeux Mondiaux Militaires : La France avec Abriel et Dalmat, Le «soldat» Pouvereau au service de la France, Darfalou, l’autre arme offensive des Usmistes, that's just from a quick search. Again, plenty of coverage out there just need to bother looking and not just claim it is non-notable based on your lack of interest on the competition. TonyStarks (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many sources see "Military World Games" football on Google News. I'm from the Netherlands and there was also covarage in Dutch media about the football event see here. And in general, there was coverage of the different sports in the main Belgian newspapers. For instance Judo and Parachuting. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominators says that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but noting there indicates that the event is not notable.

The reason they all fail WP:NFOOTBALL is that they are not accredited by a professional body like FIFA or the IOC. This is an amateur competition, and holds no importance. What is to stop articles being created on Football at the Firefighter games, etc. etc, There needs to be a line drawn. Also, the sources provided are not significant coverage to pass GNG, but just routine mentions. JMHamo (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call it routine coverage when there tons of major newspapers reporting on the competition? TonyStarks (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "tons of major newspapers" providing non-routine coverage, then please add them as references in the article. Keep in mind that multiple newspapers running the same Reuters or Associated Press article still only counts as one source. Looking at the references in the article, I found only two or three that could be considered "major" news sources. Consensus at WP:FOOTBALL is that tournaments at this level not contested by national teams or by clubs from fully-professional leagues are not generally notable, so significant non-routine coverage is required; the only coverage cited so far is routine. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Military World Games is a limited participation amateur tourney, because the only people who can participate are people on active military service (which would be their "job"); they are not professional athletes. If a particular iteration of the tourney itself is not notable, an article on a particular sport in a particular iteration is even less so. MSJapan (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom to consider WP:BEFORE in future. Also trying to rebut every !vote = embarrassing Carlos Kickabaw (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please show which coverage has not been WP:ROUTINE to allow this competition to meet GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well referenced with source demonstrating the topic meets WP:GNG. Don't know what else there is to debate. Nothing routine about [1]. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - comments above clearly indicate a significant level of multinational coverage. Meets GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2015 (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.