Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small Maracanazo


 * 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. Consensus is that the sources in the article plus those also provided in the discussion satisfy GNG showing a degree of continuing comment on this match Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Small Maracanazo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tough because it is foreign language, but after a look around, I don't see sufficient sources that indicate this single match passes WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree with the deletion proposal- The article is translated from sections of the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Pequeño Maracanazo) and the Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Pequeño Maracanazo). I have included also references taken from publications done in Venezuela about the Venezuelan football: that means to me that it is noteworthy (it is considered one of the highest achievements of the Venezuelan soccer: please read "sp:Fútbol de colonias en Venezuela"). There it is also a university work/publication on it! Sincerely, I don't understand why it has to be erased ONLY in the English Wikipedia........--92no0 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough current coverage, all of the sources in the article are blogs, references 2 and 4 are actually repeated and reference 5 is a picture where the players aren't identified. As a native Spanish speaker and Venezuelan, at first glance I fail to see how the article is notable in the context of the 1971 Copa Libertadores competition.--Jamez42 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All blogs? there it is one reference from a 'El Universal' newspaper (the main in Caracas) and another from an important Caracas university Phd thesis ...I can add excerpts from the related  articles of the Italian newspaper of Caracas: la Voce d'italia.
 * I am adding to the article these phrases: The victory was received by the Italians of Venezuela with street car caravans in Caracas and it was celebrated by the "La Voce d'Italia" (the main newspaper of the local Italian community) with a special edition The brasilian newspaper “Jornal Dos Sport” (of Rio de Janeiro) published the next day an article complaining about this disaster of the powerful Fluminense, champion of Brasil, while pinpointing that the Fluminense vice-president died of a heart attack during the match. After 45 years the Venezuelan newspaper "Ultimas Noticias" still celebrated the victory in 2016 --92no0 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * While this is true, I should note that the PhD thesis is not about the match, but rather of Deportivo Petare (Petare F.C.), which formerly was the Deportivo Italia. There are only five mentions of the Maracaná stadium in the thesis, so I see more appropriate to merge the content with the team's main article per WP:GNG.--Jamez42 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the Phd thesis names five times the Maracanã but this is not enough for you and of course the Venezuelan newspapers (from el Universal to el Nacional & Ultimas Noticias & La Voce d'Italia) don't count anything.....like the brasilian Journal do Sport reference .....sincerely, all this is really strange. --92no0 (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO there are evidences of notability, from articles in international newspapers to commemorations. As a further proof of notability I have added the report published "internationally" by the AP (Associated Press) about the match. The report was sent in Spanish (and published, of course often partially, in many newspapers) in all the Latinoamerican countries and Spain.--92no0 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - There are articles about this in the Spanish and Portuguese wikipedias and big sporting sites such as Globo Esporte and Spanish language sources mention it as well. PMLF (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep   amongst others still detail what a monumental upset this was. SportingFlyer  talk  07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep since the article is about not just a notable but a famous subject. Sources from other languages that establish notability are, of course, cceptable in English-language Wikipedia, as long as they are reliable. -The Gnome (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I'll take back my vote to delete the article because since the article was nominated there's been quite some improvement in it. I still think the article needs work to be done, just not enough to be deleted anymore.--Jamez42 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Same reasons I wrote last week. --92no0 (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Sorry, multiple voting is not acceptable. - The Gnome (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I thought that with the "relist" we have to vote again.--92no0 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - just because the majority of coverage of this subject are from non-English sources does not mean the subject us not notable. That being said this article does need some major work and clean up if it is kept. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2018 (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.