Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Overseas teams in the Round of 64 of the Coupe de France since 2015

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Overseas teams in the Round of 64 of the Coupe de France since 2015[edit]

List of Overseas teams in the Round of 64 of the Coupe de France since 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm probably missing something here but I'm struggling to see the significance of this list. Is there something special or exclusive about overseas teams competing in the round of 64 in this competition since 2015? I can't see how WP:LISTN or WP:GNG are met. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone Keep, but i admit that the page needs of improvements. Can we move the page in the draftspace? Dr Salvus (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can do if there is consensus for that in this discussion. Generally, though, there would need to be potential for the topic to be encyclopaedic and notable. Are there multiple reliable sources reporting about overseas teams in the round of 64 since 2015? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overseas France is France. Unclear why these teams are singled out any differently from teams from Paris or teams from Corsica since there are no sources specifically about the performance of Overseas teams. Respective articles like 2018–19 French Cup show the regions all the teams are from and their performances. Reywas92Talk 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Overseas, as a direct translation of the French Outre-mer does have a specific meaning in France, being shorthand for the collectivity of overseas departments and territories (DOMTOM or départements d'outre-mer et territoires d'outre-mer). In football and Coupe de France terms, I've always referred to these as Overseas departments and territories, because to the casual reader overseas can be confusing - and even could be taken out of context to include Corsica which isn't a contiguous part of mainland france, but is counted as such in organisational terms. The situation on wiki is confused even more by our article on French overseas departments and territories residing since 2017 at Overseas France. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HawkAussie There are differences. This article describes the journey of the overseas teams even in the preliminary rounds. This page has different purposes than the other one you mentioned. Dr Salvus (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - list is just abstraction of data from the existing preliminary round articles, and seems to have an arbitrary cutoff of when the detailed coverage of preliminary rounds started on-wiki. Progress of the of overseas teams through their own self-contained competition could be linked from within the other article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France, to render this list completely unnecessary, if that gap explicitly needs to be covered.Gricehead (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a long title header, I can understand and see what the creator is trying to do, but I don't see this needed really. There are other ways the reader can learn this. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I mentioned at the WT:FOOTY discussion, don't see a need for this separate article for performances from 2015 onwards. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete serves no purpose --Devokewater 15:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR: sourcing a page to a single source is not an article, it's original research bordering on a copyright violation. We have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how it could be both original research and a copyright violation. Nonetheless, it should be deleted as an arbitrary list. Smartyllama (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2021 (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.