Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Toros Neza 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 delete. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

1994–95 Toros Neza season

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner  talk 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  The Banner  talk 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 4 October 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)


 * The article has 5 sources:, , , , (season itself subsection Matches), the first two regards the ban of Neza 86 stadium how the franchise changed its name for the 1994-95 season recovering its original denomination Toros Neza. The link number 3 is regarding to the coach, it is clearly how the link states he managed the team during the 1994-95 season. The reference 4 is a link of the goalkeeper, it was a player transferred in for the 1994-95 season. The reference number 6 is about Centre back defender Luis Carlos Perea it is clear how it states he played for the club during the 1994-95 season. Reference number 6 is linked to the 1994-95 Mexico season with RSSSF page, the structure of the article consisted of information about these tables (group and overall), matches, and goalscorers round by round. The link is a reference for the 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. Reference number 7 is linked to the squad statistics created on the article and states clearly the players of the team for the 1994-95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:27, 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 18:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Toros Neza season and you reviewed during autumn, now the article is nominated to be deleted even it is properly sourced with 7 references. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links. 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. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So now you are adding RSSSF everywhere. You know that page is copyright protected? The Banner  talk 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * False. 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) 17:32, 6 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) 15:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't see how any of the sources provide in-depth analysis of Toros Neza for this season, which is what GNG would require. The only one that helps build the article is RSSSF but that's just pure results listings and doesn't contain any meaningful prose. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:36, 3 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) 00:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. How many of these pages are these? Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As wrote "Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look..." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:20, 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 22:40, 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. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.