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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adana derby

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
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)

Non-notable sports match/event. Appears to lack coverage to meet WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If the community decides it is notable, the article will survive the AfD. BTW - using quotes, there are only 113 Google hits for "Adana derby" and 126 for "Adana derbi". This includes any duplication. reddogsix (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-point That point is irrelevant because Turkish grammar would mean you'd have to add in "Adana derbisi" search which gives 88,700 results to get a full picture, of course still duplication. By contrast, M66 derby gets way less than that with or without quotes for example, and I think you mean 113 000 and 126 000 not 113 and 126 Abcmaxx (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again, I think you mean thousands, or you are using Google wrong [1]
  • Comment Want to point out that the articles I included aren't just Team A v Team B played. They include pre-match build up, manager comments, fans riots etc. etc. so it's more than just routine match happening.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that the line of debate above is particularly helpful. Firstly, Pre-match build up, manager comments, fans riots, etc are precisely what I would expect to see from routine coverage and match reportng. Secondly, Ghits is not really a reliable means of assessing notability. Given that this has only recently been deleted through AfD, what is needed is a comprehensive review of the new sources that have been added or were not discussed in detail last time. Working on the basis that there is no need to consider sources present when the first AfD was concluded as there is clear consensus from that discussion that the sources contained in that version were insufficient for GNG. I'm undecided at the moment based on the following as there is some stuff but not really a great deal:

  1. Eurosport - Mentions the word derby but is nothing more than a pre-match build up articles with a few stats. Nothing in this that could be used to add any significant content to this article
  2. hurriyet - doesn't mention the notion of a derby at all. There was some violence between fans. This means nothing in the context of this article. I think it is OR to draw the conclusion that violence = rivalry
  3. fanatik.com - This is essentially exactly the same brief coverage of violence in the previous source, it cannot be use to assert GNG therefore
  4. sabah.com mentions the word derby but doesn't elaborate in any way beyond reoutine pre-match talk. Nothing specific on the notion of a derby.
  5. fourfourtwo - is an article of significant length specifically dealing with the notion of a derby, supports GNG
  6. presshaber article specifically discussing bespoke securtiy arrangments required for this match. Supports GNG as notes special requirements needed for this match

@Abcmaxx: for future reference, it is not particularly helpful to recreate and recently deleted article and just dump a few more bare URLs into the article, it would be helpful if during the course of the AfD you could use any content in those refs to build up the article with additional sourced prose since brief comments like "violence is not uncommon" do not need four sources and it really shouldn't be the responsibility of other editors to have to review the sources you add.

reply I'm not sure what else would you want; both clubs receive quite a lot of coverage in literature and so on (I added two books as sources too), what is there to football other than pre-match build up, manager comments, fan reactions? By that point any match would fail because every pre-match talk is "routine". My point was it's not just a load of stats. I never said the article was perfect, but please remember Wiki editing is voluntary hobby not a full time job. I didn't just "dump a few bare URL's", I re-structured the article and added more sources which no-one else seems to bother doing. If you devoted more time to actually improving the article rather than trying to delete any article you found a hole to pick this could become a top entry Abcmaxx (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing rivalries in particular there is often much more. I would compare this article to Old firm. You will see there not only the sort of sources you have used here that deal with specific matches and instances of fan trouble that are minor in the grand scheme of things, but also specific sources and books that are dedicated to discussing the notion of the rivalry in a wider context. This is what you need to show to indicate a rivalry is notable, significant discussion of it as a concept in itself. Pulling together disparate sources that mention the odd bit of fan trouble, use the word "derby" but don't discuss it as a concept, pre-match articles that discuss and individual game but not a wider context, etc and saying that there is therefore a widely reported notion of rivalry is merely synthesis not showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ridiculous I wouldn't compare to the Old Firm, the Big Three derbies would be the equivalent of that. This more comparable to A62 derby for example; two historic clubs not in the top flight have a long historic geographical rivalry. "Odd bit of fan trouble"; it stops being "odd bit" when it happens nearly every single match. "Use the word "derby" but don't discuss it as a concept"; no idea what you mean by this but if it's hailed as a big derby consistently before and after every match, that proves a notion of rivalry. There's even pictures in the article showing special supplements in newspapers about the derby! Having an article saying 1461 Trabzon-Trabzonspor is a derby and then seeing it as a rivalry that would be WP:SYNTH, this not that at all.. According to you if there isn't hundreds of academic research on it it cannot be a rivalry? Also you're subjecting this to a much bigger scrutiny than comparable articles; apart from 5-6 top rivalries in the world none of the articles would meet your ludicrously harsh and unnecessary scrutiny. Somehow we all seem to acknowledge lesser derbies in the UK and make articles about them on much less than here. I think for someone who doesn't speak any Turkish I've done a remarkable job getting this to this level. If you spent more time contributing to Wiki you might even know what's that like rather than trying to sh*t all over other people's efforts to the point one questions what is the point of contributing on any subject that's not extensively covered by 6 million sources, newspapers (but only ones you like), books by professors (but only from the top uni's), word for word quotes of what you want that source to say (telepathy not a problem), and on subjects/parts of the world that only the over-zealous "AfD crew" feel familiar with Abcmaxx (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you think your ad hominems add to the argument, though they are remarkably aggressive when considering that they are aimed at someone who not only declined the second speedy request as I felt there was a chance of GNG but has also clearly noted that they are undecided about things at the moment. As I noted above, I would suggest that you spend your time in this discussion arguing from the pov of the sources and the duration of the AfD expanding the article with more sourced prose from the references there and further if you can to help bolster your views. Oh, and by the way you might like to look here before you start abusing other editors, but why let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh? Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 18 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.
More