Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Cruz Azul season


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

1994–95 Cruz Azul season

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner  talk 09:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  The Banner  talk 09:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article was reviewed by user:Bruxton and includes 7 references/sources/links:

,, , , , and. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC) *Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds (x3) that you are breaching copyrights. I hope I am wrong. The Banner  talk 14:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * RSSSF Reference is useful to structure the article, including two tables linked to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and the Matches round by round subsection, also the link is useful to create the crutial "position by round" table and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. GiantSnowman 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regards the squad, transfers and players statistics sections I used the source http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte05jn95b.html it covers the season 94-95 for the club. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again, sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this overly specified page. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends and  comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV.  Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD.   Ravenswing     00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2], [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2022 December 6. Note that the "per DRV" in the 28 November relist comment is a different DRV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Just noticed this article re-added back. This was a notable season for the club, they were group two winners and in the play-off final for the Mexican Primera División. Sources for transfers should be collected and match reports. It really shouldn't be that hard. To delete and say it's not notable without doing the WP:BEFORE, or even trying to improve the article is a joke to the wikiproject. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep while the article needs improvement, I'm convinced by the discussions at ANI/DRV that sourcing exists for this season. Star   Mississippi  00:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Govvy. Article needs work but is very clearly notable. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 04:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NSEASONS states "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements." The team played in the top professional league in Mexico during this season. There are numerous sources describing what happened for the club. The presumption at AFD should be there is sufficient sourcing for summary articles of a top-level professional teams, and that votes to delete the article should demonstrate that no sources exist. --Enos733 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The nomination statement is still correct. Remarkably, after so long at AfD, this is still a season article that contains no inline citations to reliable sources about the season. Per policy that needs to be corrected if this article is to be kept.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and S Marshall. There is still significant doubt that sources exist to the level required to demonstrate notability here, and significant amounts of the content is unverified. Daniel (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Season articles for teams in the top league in the continent are generally notable, and this article is not an exception. Good grief, they play in the capital, made it to the finals, and are arguably one of the biggest teams on the continent! There's no end of detailed articles, even though most sources aren't available online after a quarter-century. I've added 3 in-depth references to the article. This appears to be a massive WP:BEFORE failure from User:The Banner. Also, I don't know what either User:S Marshall and User:Daniel are thinking after other recent AFDs like WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Santos Laguna season. Also, could User:GiantSnowman review their (now 3-month old) delete vote, now that further sources have been added tot he article. Nfitz (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The most cursory Google search pulled this recap of Cruz Azul's playoff performance. Once I have some extra time, I'll look for similar coverage of the pre-playoff portion of the season, but based on the review of Santos Laguna's season (noted by Nfitz above), I'm very confident I will find more instances of SIGCOV. Editors !voting on the state of the sources included in the article (see above) should be heavily discounted as they haven't checked existing sources not cited. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.