Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 AIFF Youth Cup


 * 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 merge to India_national_under-17_football_team.  MBisanz  talk 16:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 AIFF Youth Cup

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested by User:Ramit.mukherjee.1994 for the following reason: "It is too early to say that this competition will not become an annual or biennial competition. Plus, there is a need to properly represent Indian under17 football on wikipedia before the much coveted 2017 u17 world cup. Thus, the article should stay."

First reason is obvious WP:CRYSTALBALL. As far as anything is concerned for now, it is a one time event which may continue. Also the representation for the India U17 team is not a proper reason. The India U17 team has their own page and this tournament's fixtures/results can be put there for them. Cheers. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and refocus to the single-event competition (trim the WP:CRYSTAL material).
 * While "It is too early to say that this competition will not become an annual or biennial competition" is a blatant reversal of the burden of proof, and predictions about later editions of the contest are pure speculation, that event has a fair bit of media coverage (see sources, and also ).
 * Considering that this is an international tournament, it would be inappropriate to merge to a national team's page. I do not see any adequate target, though I would not oppose a merge if it exists.
 * Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While it is an international tournament, it is not an official one... not under FIFA, the AFC, or the South Asian Football Federation. It is just under the All India Football Federation and is a quick tournament set-up just to give practice to the Indian players before the AFC U16 Championships and the U17 World Cup, for which will be their first time. None of the players in the tournament are even notable as well (thus why competitions for the under-14s do not exist for example). Also the coverage is nothing special honestly. There are some papers about how this is the first test for the under-17 side but most of the reports are from the AIFF and US and Indian soccer/football blogs mixed in and a few press releases and match reports. Nothing really substantial that, in my opinion, call for an article under GNG. So I guess this is me contesting your Keep reason. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, "international tournaments" are not notable just by being international; I only gave my reason to oppose the merge to a single team's page.
 * As for the coverage, independent sources picked it up and it passes GNG in my eyes (that these sources are vastly outnumbered by SPS is irrelevant). Yes, refs #2 and #3 are in all likelihood copies of the same press release, but it is coverage nonetheless. GNG might not be fair (a minor soccer competition is to my eyes less encyclopedia-worthy than a semi-obscure ancient ruler, for instance) but it is relatively objective.
 * I actually think thinly modified press releases should be discounted for the notability test (on the basis of WP:GNG independence clause), but I have met opposition in the past to such a view, on the basis that (1) determining that something is a "PR in disguise" is hard to do and (2) a newspaper that publishes a PR implicitly endorses its content. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay... either way, this does not pass GNG. This tournament has only gotten the same amount of coverage that say the I-League U15 league got. Of course national papers such as the Times of India will pick it up, esspecially their local versions, but there is no extensive coverage, not many details about the tournament other than what it is which is just a friendly tournament. It is really no notable at all under a footballing-scope and should be added to the 2015–16 in Indian football page or mentioned in the India U17 article. That is it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that the results of the competition could just be included in the under17 team's page and that would serve the purpose. However, the 2017 u17 world cup is an event of utmost importance in Indian football. Considering this, I feel that this page should be allowed to stay, mainly because the performance of the under17 team in this competition is important for the world cup. Secondly, it is also true that the tournament has received much media attention, and has been promoted a lot by the AIFF. Keeping all this in mind, I feel that this page will be of much interest to readers who are excited about the u17 world cup and are developing an interest in following the Indian u17 team. Thus, I propose that the page be let to exist as of now, and be deleted at a later stage if it becomes only a one time event. Cheers Ramit Mukherjee (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, whether the U17 WC is of utmost importance in Indian football is of utmost irrelevance to the notability of this particular tournament. Moreover, "interesting to readers" is not a good reason to keep an article. Finally, your suggestion to have the page now and delete it later is not the way Wikipedia works; it is better to have no article about something that later happens, than having an article about something that actually will not happen: I could write a plausible fiction about Donald Trump's presidency (2016-2020) but it would be highly inappropriate to have it on Wikipedia until after the events actually occurred. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See, my whole point is this tournament, however little some might consider, is of importance to the under 17 team and people following it (maybe small in number). Secondly, What I suggested was that if this tournament lost its relevance in the future or is not held in the future it can be deleted then. Currently, I believe it is a pretty relevant topic for Indian football and specially the u17 team I mean, to delete an article just because it might not take place in the future seems a bit unfair. Anyhow, I really do not have any more points to add. I feel, I have presented my case, as the creator of the article. The whole intent of creating this article was to provide those interested in the event a proper read. Now, it's entirely upto you guys if you want to delete it. Cheers Ramit Mukherjee (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest you click on the links I left in my previous comment, they point to Wikipedia policies (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:INHERIT) which, in my view, completely refute your arguments. Simply restating your arguments without addressing my points is of little value. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, I have no points to add even with regards to the links you left. If interesting and uninteresting are subjective issues, I believe importance and non importance should be too. The page depicts an event that is currently going on, finds substantial coverage on the media and even if not interesting to a majority, might be interesting to a limited number of readers. So, this I do not feel qualifies only for personal interests. With regards to the links you left, the WP:ITSINTERESTING mentions "Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet and their kids. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may not care about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." I really am not very conversant with wikipedia policies and other technicalities and hence would not be able to present my points or defend my article on such grounds. What I have used as a defense, lies on the grounds of logic and common perception. Thanks, Ramit Mukherjee (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable youth friendly competition. Not organised by a continental or even sub-continental body. No indication of wider GNG beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge a small mention in India_national_under-17_football_team, and leave a redirect. Changing my !vote at second thought and after discussion with nominator above - that one is a good target. I still think there are enough sources for a standalone article (even if I do not like it), but a merge is good enough. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively into India_national_under-17_football_team. It's worth a note there, but not its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect and then mention however amount needed, still questionable for independent notability at best. SwisterTwister   talk  22:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect over to some part of India national under-17 football team. Even if the competition is perhaps somewhat notable, putting information there frames it in the right context and seems to be the most helpful thing. Minute details about the competition shouldn't have undue weight and can just be discarded. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems official enough, and this is one of the first youth tournaments India has hosted. There has even been coverage in the United States. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, the coverage in the US is limited to the blogs and SI and more just general coverage (squad and match reports). Nothing really substantial. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2016 (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.