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. The keep arguments does not make anything beyond a simple assertion to how this article will satisfy our WP:N requirements. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adana derby[edit]

Adana derby (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was No evidence of sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NRIVALRY, these articles need to show GNG. Simply playing each other is not enough, there needs to be significant reliable coverage on the notion of the rivalry itself not routine matches reporting that merely confirms that games between the two sides have taken place. Fenix down (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a big rivalry, a quick google search shows several pictures of fans clashing and mobilising themselves and non-routine articles, therefore satisfying WP:GNG [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Abcmaxx (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure you have satisfied GNG by any means here. There are several issues with the sources you provided:

1. Sources 1 and 5 are exactly the same link, so it is a bit disingenuous to show it twice, did you mean to post something else?
2. Sources 2 and 4 may be from different sites, but they show exactly the same photos with no supporting text, so again can't be used twice to support GNG
3. How does a series of photos support the nature of a rivalry? All it shows is that fans attended the games, there is no discussion of the notion of a rivalry, so they do not in fact support GNG
4. Either way, sources 2 and 4 don't look like particularly reliable sources anyway, they are just fan pages for various ultras groups
5. Source 3 consists of a paragraph of text, this may indicate a degree of coverage, but hardly supports GNG.

At best then, you have presented one significant article and one minor article. I just don't see GNG there, particularly as, somewhat unhelpfully you have just dumped in a load of links in foreign languages without attempting to explain context. Are you able to help elucidate please? Fenix down (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reply:

1. "don't look like particularly reliable sources anyway, they are just fan pages for various ultras groups" - so because they are about a certain subject/with a certain focus it means they are unreliable? Both are international pages and unbiased, in that way we can deride any source; "just a news website with articles", "just a statistics webiste", "just a sports website".

2. I don't speak any Turkish so I am unable to do a proper search - this just what I searched in English within 2 minutes and found with the little of other languages I could comprehend. The very fact there are German / international pages writing about a lower league derby surely indicates some notability; it is very rare for any foreign website to cover anything below level 2 of the pyramid.

3. "How does a series of photos support the nature of a rivalry" - well calling it a "derby" for a start suggest rivalry, if it was nothing special no-one would pay any attention to it. How many lower league games do you know of anywhere outside of western Europe where twenty thousand people turn up, especially given in Turkey where maybe a few thousand at most usually attend with the exception of a handful of teams Abcmaxx (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

update: found more elaborate articles [6] [7] here's a FourFourTwo article [8] also found a video of some riots which usually shows a bitter rivalry [9]

Abcmaxx (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not the best article, but I took a quick look through it and it seems well sourced and satisfies WP:NRIVALRY. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best and Draft if needed as this is still noticeably questionable for this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources raised in this discussion such as ultras-tifo.net and casualultra.com are clearly inadmissible as WP:RS, regardless of the truth of any information presented there. Looking at some of the sources through Chrome automatic translation, I cannot see any confirmation of it being the "fifth most popular city derby in Turkey" - WP:OR? Videos, which may prove something exists, are not exempt from the GNG requirement, and I cannot see that this has been satisfied in this case. C679 08:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete does not have notable sources. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2016 (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.