Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationships among New York Giants soccer teams


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Relationships among New York Giants soccer teams
Please note: This deletion process now applies equally to New York Giants (soccer), which is now a cut&paste reversion of the recent move to Relationships among New York Giants soccer teams
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nom & opine Delete: The article was written for New York Giants (soccer) (which for the moment is a two-linked "soft redirect"), with the apparent intention to provide an article obviating (1) any mention of the individual teams on a compliant Dab page, (2) the stub New York Giants (1894 soccer) that i created from part of its content, and (3 & 4) any articles intended to separately cover (in the fashion that San Francisco Giants includes their earlier period as the New York Giants and Minnesota Twins includes their earlier period as one of the teams called Washington Senators, thruout their respective entire multi-named histories) the two other teams that used the name. Clearly the established WP principles of treating company and team topics as unified across name changes, WP:Dab, and avoiding (via many-one links to info relavent to multiple topics) unnecessary duplication of info between articles, will require moving much of the current content out to other articles. This will leave two questions: does the remainder add up to a worthy article, and (even if so), is it desirable for readers interested in one team to have to sort that info out from all the relationships between any two of the three. (Identifying the teams as I, II, and III -- tho i think this terminology was invented for the article -- my impression is that I & III both had affiliations with the NY Giants baseball team, and that II and III changed names in the same inter-season in such a way that III got the name that II had used a season earlier. This implies that readers otherwise interested only in III may need to know about both of those interrelationships; those otherwise interested only in I or in II may need to know abt its relationship to III, but not about the other interrelationship.) My conclusion is that one of the three teams' articles needs all the interrelationship info, but two articles need only one or the other "half" of it, and therefore users are best served by repeating in the respective articles only what is needed by them; this approach also would permit the information to be restated "from the point of view" -- temporally, and in terms of role in the relationship -- of the team that is the topic of the particular team article containing that version of the info, resulting in greater clarity even in the article that requires all of that information. And i see that as eliminating the last purpose that the relationship article could serve. Jerzy•t 06:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Above has no idea what he is talking about Djln--Djln (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's neither true nor helpful. Please be more civil.--chaser (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above diatribe is just waffle. In all my time as Wiki editor, I never seen somebody write so much and actually not make any sense. I can't make out what he is trying to say Djln--Djln (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if we split out the content of this article into three separate articles, we would need to keep this article, even if only in the form of a redirect, to preserve attribution history. Just as merge and delete is not a valid option, split and delete is not a valid option, for the same legal reasons. In the event anyone decides to split, be sure to use "split from " in your edit summary to preserve attribution history.--chaser (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Tho i'm not as well versed as Chaser in wording my opinion and summary, "split and Rdr to Dab-section" is what i intended. (That has been a routine calling of the outcome, when appropriate, since VfD days, w/o expecting that opinion to be the explicit consensus, and AFAIK often without anyone mentioning it.) It is what i in part implemented (and for the remainder, facilitated) before realizing such an outcome would be at all controversial. (By "facilitated", i mean that
 * i put the relevant portion into my stub New York Giants (1894 soccer), and
 * copied the respectively relevant portions onto talk: New York Soccer Club and Talk:New York Nationals (ASL), clearly identifying where they came from
 * although, as i think i have already stated elsewhere, i do not regard myself as a appropriate editor to efficiently get the right content into those particular articles.) --Jerzy•t 05:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The 3 teams here probably could each get a separate page, but even if they do New York Giants (soccer) would be an appropriate dab page, and there may be content worth keeping on such a page regarding the relationships among the 3 teams (i.e., #1 and #3 were both connected to the Giants baseball team). Rlendog (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The three teams already each have a separate page, in one case a stub created by me (tho Djln is apparently so determined that the article under discussion be the only coverage of the relationships, as to twice overwrite with a Rdr to the page under discussion, not only IMO to the detriment of making this discussion effective, but with summary "no articles link here" re a clearly marked stub that had at that point existed as such for a total of less than 24 hours). I have not tried to determine whether the two above-stub articles conform to our well-established practice (either a guideline or one that has been avoided as instruction creep) that companies and teams continue to be a single topic when they change names, or Djln's presumable preference, that the topic New York Giants (soccer) contain the complete history of all teams that have used the name, and that the group of three histories be followed a single chronological table of the known won/lost and/or season-result record of the name, and that that table followed by a list of all the stars known to have competed under the name. As to New York Giants (soccer) being a Dab, i have several times advocated for such an approach in similar situations -- tho not for a long time, except in a new form last month, at politicians Robert Smith. The only objection straightforward that i will state her (tho neither the most compelling IMO, nor as resistant to the possibility of workarounds, as those i will not state) is that a Dab page linked from another Dab page must be linked not with
 * * Your title here
 * but with
 * * Your title here (disambiguation)
 * IIRC, both for user-psychology reasons and re considerations probably involving automated-bypassing tools. In the case of the proposed title "New York Giants (soccer)" -- a title chosen, as i have already stated in this matter (if not necessarily on this AfD pg), not at random but bcz it would normally take a user to the primary-topic team with the name -- the question arises whether the link from the Dab New York Giants should be marked up (to use a Rdr) to read either
 * * New York Giants (soccer disambiguation)
 * or
 * * New York Giants (soccer) (disambiguation)
 * each of which offends intuition. It seems that it was not on this AfD subpage where i said, relating directly or closely to the page in (IIRC) the last 36 hours, that New York Giants (soccer) shouldn't be the title of the article under discussion, and i don't even fault anyone who read that statement and felt confident that "this can't be that complicated". Actually, it isn't that complicated: it's more complicated than even what i've since stated. If the navigational aspects of the question are dismissed, i won't hesitate to insist on pushing back the closing of this discussion, to permit full participation by those who can, more whole-heartedly and with greater facility than i, argue for preserving the integrity of the heavily discussed and well-established guidelines and practices that are affected by proposed resolutions. --Jerzy•t 05:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Jerzy, have you ever heard of Plain English or the Plain English Campaign. I think you should nominated for the Golden Bull Award. Perhaps if you could write without waffling, this situation could be resolved a lot easier. But just to comment on a few points I’ve managed to decipher. The reason there are separate articles on New York Nationals (ASL) and New York Soccer Club is because teams played under these names. The first New York Giants soccer team never played under any other name and existed for only a few weeks. Do they really warrant a separate article. There is absolutely no need to create a disambiguation page either. The opening line could not be more clear.
 * New York Giants was a name used by three different New York soccer teams.        Djln--Djln (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the page New York Giants (soccer), and delete the page called "Relationships among..." I think it's a good idea to combine the three different Giants soccer teams (1894, 1923-30, 1930-32) into one article without having "relationships" in the title.  And please, let's keep this discussion civil.  Mandsford (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinion I think it is preferable to have separate articles plus a Dab page. The drawback is the size of some of the split articles. However, expanding articles is a question of taking the time to do the research so I am not overly critical of that issue. I don't think that similar names is necessarily a good reason to combine subjects. Some teams have completely different names but are of the same organization. I think a team article should mention any prior names in their history. Similarly, a club's article can mention their other teams (seniors, juniors, women's, B, C, reserves, etc.) without separate articles. Also, articles on 'relationships' between teams can be innumerable since this can be broadly interpreted like sharing leagues, stadiums, owners, players, having a rivalry, as well as common names. Libro0 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - all three teams should have one article between them - New York Giants (soccer); merge any useful info from the 'Relationships' article and then deleted it. GiantSnowman 12:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:29, 10 November 2009 (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.