Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NextGen series


 * 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

NextGen series

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Youth tournament organized by third party, not UEFA-sactioned. Participants are non-notable players who fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Routine coverage of the tournament similar in quantity and depth as the deleted Talent Cup. Borderline WP:CSD. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 07:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why delete this when Premier Academy League also consist of non-notable players? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Multiple newspapers have given this tournament constant attention, particularly the Daily Mail, which stands to me as evidence of notability. I seem to recall that there is a Wikipedia policy that forbids using the argument "X article was deleted and this article Y is similar so we must delete article Y", for the record, though I haven't the time to look it up yet. Falastur2  Talk 16:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not really any valid reason provided for deletion. Buy anyway it has received a large amount of coverage across many sources. Adam4267 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep FCBarcelona's website seems to be taking it seriously. La Fuzion  ( What's up? ) 22:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Barca's "official" newspaper El Mundo Deportivo does not mention it at all. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I believe the rationale for deletion of the Talent Cup directly applies to this article as well, namely the lack of sources (~30 hits on GNews) and the depth of coverage (majority of coverage are blogs and routine mentions). Further note the coverage by the Daily Mail, which appears to be the only RS with more than trivial mentions of the event, is written by the founder and promoter of the Series, Mark Warburton. Ultimately, this is a junior friendly event that fails WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - According to Celtic FC, it is in fact UEFA sanctioned. It's also being written up on by Celtic, Inter, Liverpool, and Man City, and those are just the first four that I checked. It's an official tournament, the clubs are covering it, and the outside media is covering it. If this isn't notable, neither is the UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Celtic's claim that the event is UEFA-sanctioned appears to be wrong. The UEFA website, which normally does a fantastic job reporting its news events, does not mention NextGen at all. They only list U-19, U-17, and UEFA Regions' Cup as competitions under Youth and Amateur. The NextGen official website also makes no claim that is it UEFA-sanctioned. On your second point, club websites generally cover every event their team participates in, but that does not establish notability. Since about 75% of the Series takes place outside of the UK, you would expect substantial non-UK coverage, but major European media local to participating teams are not covering this at all. Examples include the aforementioned El Mundo Deportivo, La Gazella dello Sport, Aftenposten, Die Zeit, L'Équipe, and Zaman. In fact, coverage is strictly limited to a small number of very trivial routine mentions and in the Warburton-affiliated Daily Mail. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many newspapers have not covered the subject, but how many have covered it, as shown in other comments here. And what evidence do you have that the Daily Mail is "Warburton-affiliated"? The newspaper invited him to write one article, but has other coverage written by others. It may not be an independent reliable source for politically contentious topics, but I see no reason to discount its coverage here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears notable. GiantSnowman 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - regardless of any connection to UEFA, it passes WP:GNG on the basis of significant coverage in national UK media. In response to the comment that this is limited to the Daily Mail, here are some other examples: Telegraph Sky Sports Guardian Scottish Herald Scotsman Daily Mirror STV. Deserter 1   talk   16:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Switzerland and their press: example "Blick" and FC Basel webside with match report FCB-PSV take it seriously. --Huligan0 (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per other editors view that the series has notability, as evidenced by the newspaper articles. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2011 (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.