Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Académica da Praia 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

2014–15 Académica da Praia season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Club is a part of the top league which isn't professional which would fail WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. I would also like to nominate these articles also for the same reason.


 * 2015–16 Académica da Praia season
 * 2016–17 Académica da Praia season
 * 2017–18 Académica da Praia season
 * 2014–15 CD Travadores season
 * 2015–16 CD Travadores season
 * 2016–17 CD Travadores season
 * 2017–18 CD Travadores season

Thanks for the understanding. HawkAussie (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep I realise 'not needlessly driving away editors' isn't strictly speaking a reason to keep, but I cannot fathom the motivation for nominating an article that is detailed, referenced, uncontroversial, and has taken lots of time to create, for deletion. Nevertheless, if red tape rules out and it is decided to delete, the person carrying this out should first ensure all content is merged into the main article. Greenman (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom, fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all as per nom and WP:NOTSTATS. Wikipedia is becoming a repository for sports stats and less and less like an encyclopedia. And Greenman I agree that not needlessly driving away editors is not a reason to keep an article either strictly or loosely. This has nothing to do with red tape and all to do with inclusion criteria. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. Agree with User:Domdeparis exactly, per WP:SUNKCOST. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The current problem with these articles is the lack of sourcing to get them over WP:GNG, but it's possible. The Académica de Praia seasons, at the very least, were significantly covered in the press, including international press (Portugal). See, as an example:  . WP:NSEASONS and WP:NFOOTBALL are not exclusionary, and a better attempt at sourcing would easily get at least some of these articles over WP:GNG. The biggest problem here IMO is searching for sources from Cape Verde isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, I'm sure if we had better access to print language media there wouldn't be any problem at all here, as these seasons cover the top teams in the country. WP:NOTSTATS isn't relevant here since the articles I reviewed all contain prose, and I don't understand the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument at all. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all: Per nom. I looked at the articles and the referencing (when there are some) that are either from "stat" sourcing, facebook pages, or even from another version of Wikipedia (2015–16 CD Travadores season) which everyone knows (should know or needs to find out) cannot be used for sourcing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and assertions that a source "might possibly be out there somewhere" as justification to keep seems a very week argument. 2016–17 CD Travadores season shows 9 references but six are from the same source and one is a large database of "stats" with the subject apparently "in there somewhere". The reference rsssf.com is more stats and stats presented as prose does not not become something else. The "prose section", common to all the articles, is all there is as the rest of the articles do reflect statistics of one form or another. All the articles are sourced primarily by "Konkuri" and rsssf.com. 2017–18 Académica da Praia season is one of the "better looking of the articles sourced only from these two and the large prose stat section (Santiago South Premier Division) is unsourced. 2016–17 Académica da Praia season lists 12 references of which 9 are in the "Santiago Island League (South)" "prose" section and all nine are from "Konkuri" that provides 10 of the 12 references (one dead primary link) and rsssf.com the 12th reference. These articles (the whole group) would likely not be good examples of anything to do with keeping articles to retain editors or not run them off. I see the primary editor has been confirmed as a sock puppet of another account and apparently both are blocked indefinitely. This gives me a headache because it seems the two accounts have nearly 100,000 edits and causes me to wonder how many of those might be "tainted". We have sourcing policies and guidelines for a reason and if something is contested the burden falls on those seeking inclusion to prove it. It is not an attempt to run anyone off by requiring subjects follow notability guidelines and demanding a certain quality of content in an encyclopedia to at least follow a minimum of some basic fundamental principles of Wikipedia, This should be a given for anyone here to build an encyclopedia. A good example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be these articles. Some are stats (with some presentation as prose) of an apparent parent article Santiago South Premier Division, that itself is a large stub-class article with a dead primary source (account suspended) and two references by the same author "Konkuri" that provides "Competition stats", "player states" and "team stats". This does give rise of concerns that Wikipedia is becoming "a repository for sports stats and less and less like an encyclopedia.". I almost wish I hadn't looked now because the last article I listed is probably as good or better a candidate for AFD. Otr500 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2019 (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.