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 delete. It seems like the key argument was posted by Jay eyem and Levivich and is that none of the proffered sources are in-depth coverage of the tournament as a whole, and for WP:GNG to be met the sourcing needs to have some substance. This line of thinking has not been strongly rebutted by the keep camp, and the split-or-unsplit question has been argued more tightly by the delete camp as well. If people want to merge stuff from here into the main competition article, they can ask at WP:REFUND as appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Windward Islands Tournament[edit]

2019 Windward Islands Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:GNG failure. Unreferenced. No clear notability for the tournament, let alone its various iterations. Contested PROD was removed saying that international events are typically notable, but I don't see that in this case, especially for a tournament organized on such a small level. It appears to be a subset of the Caribbean Football Union, which is itself a subset of CONCACAF, and the tournament does not appear to be actual competitive play. I don't see anything about it on CFU's site, and I didn't see any significant coverage when searching for the tournament in Google. Jay eyem (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see this category Category:Windward Islands Tournament, some of the articles have reliable sources coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a friendly international football tournament, passes WP:GNG. See [1] [2] [3] [4]. While it may seem routine, this is the level of coverage expected for the region. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really don't see how such localized sources can be considered to be significant coverage. Where even is the coverage from the CFU? All I've found so far is this and there is no way that is sufficient for any sort of article. It's essentially a permastub, and the same information is available at Windward Islands Tournament anyway. I don't see how this iteration is notable. And this isn't really an international tournament in the same way that the Caribbean Cup is. Jay eyem (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's an international tournament covered in the media by all of the countries participating, along with an article on the regional football federation's page, how is that not significant? Is it because the articles are short? SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would not consider any of the sources provided to be in-depth coverage of the tournament as a whole. The only thing really approaching that is the CFU's source, and I do not see how that qualifies this for a standalone article. There is no reason this could not be merged into Windward Islands Tournament (which itself needs better sourcing), and basically all of the relevant information is already there. Just because there is a slightly cobbled together collection of local sources doesn't mean something qualifies for WP:GNG, that is just imprudent. Jay eyem (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree firmly, there have been dozens of iterations of this tournament so merging really isn't an option and the tournament receives the requisite amount of local coverage. The "has the season been covered as a whole" argument fails for seasons since it's rare to see an article which covers a season (or, in this case, an event) as a whole, and this event was covered from start to finish in international media, unlike say a U.S. college tournament where only the final receives any sort of significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2nd ref listed (spiceislander.com) related to cricket so should be struck out. Spike 'em (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG as per the sources identified by Sporting Flyer and the article is one of a series if you check the category, WP :Permastub acknowledges that stubs are acceptable, the Encyclopedia Brittanica has many of them Atlantic306 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability and unconvinced by GNG arguments. GiantSnowman 10:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The way I see this is currently a no-consensus between remove or keep. There appears to be some interesting sources online for the tournament however the article fails to cite any of them, the article was created by TheBigJagielka only in February and being polite would of been to give the guy a message to improve the article with citations before nominating this article to AfD. BigJagie seems to be semi-active and should be given a chance to improve his work before tearing it down. Govvy (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Improve, and Keep should be an acceptable article with a small to moderate amount of effort. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - full international tournament that passes WP:GNG as per the sources. --Jimbo^[online] 13:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Editors involved in the AfD should commit themselves to much more than 'small' or 'moderate' amounts of related effort This is a most significant process, since it can result in the deletion of articles. And it's not a question of text size either because stub-size articles are, of course, entirely acceptable in Wikipedia. The main criterion is verifiable proof of notability. A serious effort, then, undertaken to assess the Keep suggestions shows that the subject does not meet the notability criteria for a sports event: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting. National or global reporting is preferred. This tournament gets the attention of a few local media sources (exhaustively offered above by SportingFlyer) without any further coverage. A comnmendable perhaps event but not possessing Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tournament is an international competition so the quoted section of WP:NOT does not apply as that refers more specifically to local events not to national events and especially not to international events. Also, a number of the sources are national rather than local. Also, please remember that the Windward Islands is a nationality and deserves the relevant respect that entails rather than depicting it as a locality Atlantic306 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examining what I wrote I saw no disrespect towars islandic media. And by the way, the Windward Islands are not a "nationality" as you stated, nor a "nation". It's a geographical notation. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right as it is a group of nations but that makes its inclusion more justified Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The most important factor for me is that this is not an AfD to delete Windward Islands Tournament, it's an AfD to delete 2019 Windward Islands Tournament. So it's not like if we delete this article, this tournament won't be covered in the encyclopedia. The only question for me is, do we need a separate stand-alone article for each year of this tournament? The answer is no. There is not GNG for the 2019 edition. All the links posted here (and all I can find online) are articles about a particular team playing in the tournament. Most of those are routine; the ones that are significant in length are SIGCOV of the team, not that year's tournament. Where, for example, is the long article about "Our predictions for the 2019 Windward Islands Tournament"? Or "How this year's teams will stack up against each other". You get that stuff for highly-notable tournaments, like the World Cup. Only those super-major tournaments merit a stand-alone article for each year. Although I think the tournament itself is notable, and the teams that play in it may be notable, the tournament doesn't receive the kind of GNG coverage that would make each separate year notable enough for a standalone article. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, information about each particular year should be at Windward Islands Tournament and not in a per-year standalone. We don't even need a redirect here. Although redirects are cheap and harmless, if we did one for every year of every competition, we'd have a lot, and we'd have to create more each year. So, delete, and our readers will find the same information at Windward Islands Tournament. Leviv ich 14:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Requiring "Predictions for the tournament" as a prerequisite for an individual tournament article is very far away from policy. Look at any United States college tournament article for proof we don't need articles covering the full competition to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, this tournament has had a number of editions, so including detailed information about this specific tournament, which is covered by reputable footballing encyclopedias such as [5], is best served as a content fork. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except college soccer tournaments get deleted all the time for this exact reason, the only difference here is that this is on a national level rather than a collegiate level. The coverage is actually arguably less than most D1 college soccer tournament receive. Jay eyem (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as per WP:Paper it makes sense to have seperate articles for each year rather than significantly increasing the size and loading time of the parent page. Also, as the parent article is notable this is a valid split which does not have to be independently notable but it in any case it is independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is incorrect that this does not have to have independent notability. Notability is not inherited, and given the fact that there really isn't much more information that would need merging in, there does not appear to be a need for a split. The argument must be for why this specific iteration of the tournament should be kept, and I maintain that this does not pass WP:GNG. I think User:Levivich has put forward a reasonable standard by which notability for this tournament should be measured. Jay eyem (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm actually a big fan of WP:NOTPAPER, but we also have a guideline on WP:LENGTH that talks about dividing at 50k-100k. I don't see the benefit in splitting off a 10k article from a 7k article. If anything, I think it's more convenient to the reader to have the information about each year's tournament all on the same page. Leviv ich 22:00, 26 April 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.