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. no delete !votes and snow closure requested by nominator. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Canadian Championship Final[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the discussion on the talk page, the only unique content here is the "match details" section, which could easily be merged to the 2019 Canadian Championship article. That article is not large and there is no reason to split that content from that article other than to make it appear as though this tournament is somehow larger than in past years, but still not large enough to merit a split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as originator. The unique content will grow significantly once the matches take place. It is standard for major national cup competitions to have a page dedicated specifically to the finals (see 2018 U.S. Open Cup Final). It would not be possible to incorporate the unique match details such as lineups and kits in the main tournament article because it would force us to include those details for all matches, bloating the article significantly. There is a similar article for the final championship series of the CPL, even though that series is arguably less significant since the winner of the CPL Championship only qualifies for the 2020 CONCACAF League preliminary round. The winner of this series qualifies directly to the 2020 CONCACAF Champions League knockout stage. TrailBlzr (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you ignore my size reasoning? 2018 U.S. Open Cup is 85,067 bytes while 2019 Canadian Championship is 29,654 bytes. The former is eight screen pages long, with multiple matches and very few stats or maps while the latter is five screen pages primarily maps and stats. Despite that, the small amount of data on 2018 U.S. Open Cup Final is unique to that article, and could be merged in if needed. 2019 Canadian Championship Final is primarily content duplicated in the other article and the only thing that could be added is the results of one game, which would easily fit into the main article (as has been done for every season to-date). 2019 Canadian Premier League Championship is similarly unnecessary. WP:OSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hear your point with regard to article sizing. That said, my concern is more with consistency, and byte size is not the only reason to split an article. The 2019 Canadian Premier League Championship is supported by the FOOTY U.S./Canada task force and no one has objected to its existence. If we are going to have a separate article for the domestic league finals, then we must have one for the domestic cup finals. After all, the Canadian Championship has more clubs competing than the CPL, and the stakes are higher (CONCACAF League prelim v. CONCACAF Champions League knockout). TrailBlzr (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, your concern is with making it appear as though this is a more important tournament than it is. One more time: OSE. Once this discussion is done, I'll gut the unnecessary CPL articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - You assume bad faith on my part for reasons that are unknowable; yet it is you—by your own admission—who has plans to "gut" articles that are supported by the task force, and that nobody else has any issue with. TrailBlzr (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I assume that you had good faith in trying to make this tournament appear more important than it is. I entered a good-faith discussion on the article's talk page in which you did not participate. Someone there agrees with my assessment. I will review the other articles on their own merit. I've seen enough of your edits on the project to know that you have not had good judgment in the past though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Look as a person who wants to avoid this argument between two people let me put in my thoughts. That being if you are going to expand the article, put some new information that hasn't been added in the main article as from what I see of it, Walter doesn't want this to be created as the page could fit into one while Trail says the opposite. If we are arguing about the eligible of the Canadian Premier Championship final which is an similar league to the fact of the A-League or Indian Super League (having a final). So for now I am staying neutral in this one. HawkAussie (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason why it can't have a page. It's functionally equivalent to the U.S. Open Cup, especially this year more than ever, and the final matches haven't been played yet. Understand the content fork issue - it needs to be cleaned up a bit and a lot of the information removed (the bracket, for instance, is on the wrong page), but tournament "importance" is subjective - there's no reason why there can't be an article similar to 2018 U.S. Open Cup Final, since the finals will be adequately covered by multiple reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 08:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Giant Snowman 08:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article isn't all that useless. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 11:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but your reading skills are. The content in the article could be merged to the main article, which is now smaller than this PoS article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please desist from attacking anyone who has a contrary view to yours. Posting an opinion here is NOT meant as an opportunity for single voices to shoot down every comment. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not attacking all. I questioned, two. Please read MOS:LISTGAP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please desist from attacking anyone who has a contrary view to yours. Negative comments about a contributor's reading skills such as above are unhelpful to the debate and unwelcome. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop making over-generalized statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Statement was not over-generalised; my opinion was specifically and deliberately focussed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        After your fist unnecessary warning to "desist from attacking anyone who has a contrary view" (emphasis mine) was made after there were made after four people had !voted for a keep, and one comment was left. I had only commented on two of the editors' statements. So to overgeneralize and state anyone is a problem. It's the closing admin's job to determine which editors used policy-based arguments and which had not. As the nominator, it's my job to engage poorly constructed arguments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once the page is complete with the information that it needs then it won't be worthy of deletion. For now I would say to keep the article and to try and expand as much as we can before the two legs. Once that happens then it would be good to go. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per HawkAussie comments immediately above. Then Review at some appropriate time post-match, and re-assess depending on the relative merits or otherwise of the article at the time. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's no indication that this isn't notable. That it could be merged elsewhere, isn't a delete argument, as there'd be a redirect. If it's notable, and could be merged, have a merge discussion, not a delete discussion. Also, nominator should be sanctioned for violating WP:CIVIL without any provocation. Nfitz (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, it's look notable subject and as I can see no significant problem exist inside the article for deletion.Forest90 (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close requested I see editors are focusing on the GNG of the one match, which gives me an idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.