Talk:Peace Cup 2009

Sources and notability
Hmm, I'm suprised Yahoo & Eurosport news stories are considered unreliable enough for tagging, but if that's the case so be it. There is some coverage of this event in non English sources but hardly any English language coverage. This is probably because no British or American clubs are taking part in the competition this year. I am sure that once the tournament approaches there will be more eng news articles available and that these will clearly establish notability (due to the calibre and fame of the clubs involved - particularly Real Madrid). Until then the article should tagged for sources, I agree, but I do think it deserves to exist - the article in hardly controversial and that Real Madrid state on their website they are involved, is surely enough to remove any major accuracy doubts. The problem is one of sourcing and that is just a cleanup issue. sassf (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yahoo is a news aggregator and does not have any reliability beyond that contained in the authorship (anonymous) and/or the newspaper/news agency (none given) that the article comes from. The reason it has received no coverage is that the Peace Cup is essentially a vanity tournament organised by the Unification Church -- it attracts teams through the size of the prize-money, not through any prestige. The problem is one of notability and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (WP:NOT) HrafnTalkStalk 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course you are right about true not being an inclusion criterion. I agree that the notability (strict definition) is shaky, but I do think there are some grounds for inclusion and therefore believe it isn't right for prod.  The merits of the tournament itself and whether the clubs are essentially 'bought' by the Moonies to play in it do not have a bearing on any notability, whether that notability has been established or not.  Hopefully those who have worked on the other Peace Cup articles (yes, I know there are problems there too) might be able to bring this up to scratch a little more, although I wonder if all the Peace Cup articles should be merged.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a massive case for this article, was just trying to improve it with some references, although you are right that they are hard to come by.  Thanks for that point about yahoo - I did not realise that, although it is obvious now you point it out. sassf (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does indirectly have bearing on notability. Prestigious tournaments get substantial third party coverage. Substantial third party coverage = notability. If there is (i) no apparent third party coverage of any substance on a tournament and (ii) reasons to doubt its prestigiousness, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the two are related and amount to a lack of notability. Can you think of a notable sports tournament that doesn't have any prestige attached? HrafnTalkStalk 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This one? (kidding, but it made me laugh that I thought of it and then saw the article made a similar point!). Anyway, I think that might've been a logical fallacy there if it wasn't possibly true in this case.  With regards clubs taking part for the prize money, the main Peace Cup article says the prize is just $2million, a figure that is nothing to some of the clubs taking part.  I wonder if they see some other good reason to take part? Anyway, thats just speculation.  Would you be happier if this article redirected to a section in the main Peace Cup article?  I know there are citation issues all over, but a single article could probably attract enough decent sources to keep it ticking over.  I'll do that if you agree (and there are no other major objections).  If the tournament turns out to be interesting and gets widespread coverage when it actually occurs, someone can always undo the redirect.  sassf (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that article is a clear demonstration of what this article (and Peace Cup as well) lacks -- some indication as to the historical development and significance of the competition. A simple recitation of who participated and what the scores were is not an encyclopaedic article, and generally demonstrates that non-trivial third party coverage is not available. I indeed would be more happy to see this redirected to the parent article, but (as you foreshadow) would question if even that article was particularly notable or encyclopaedic. On the money side, it's quite possible that the prize-money isn't the only inducement involved -- participation fees, lavish arrangements (for players, families and management), etc can also come into play. HrafnTalkStalk 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest that WP:INDISCRIMINATE #4 should apply: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." HrafnTalkStalk 08:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)