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. A discussion whether such articles should exist in general might be more useful going forward than separate AFDs. SoWhy 07:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atalanta B.C. in European football[edit]

Atalanta B.C. in European football (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)

No indication of notability. One of a series of articles along these same lines, all very poorly sourced. None of which even suggest the notability of these particular games as a list. Seems to be the very essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As per WP:MULTIAFD, nominated one first to see consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Cesena in European football. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerlaziale: User who undid Onel's redirect edit. But why must you be so quick to not discuss on the talk page for a moment first when I took the liberty to try and do beforehand on the talk page? Besides as the last nomination for deletion at A.C. Cesena, the outcome was redirect, not delete, so it would've been prudent to make that clear on the talk page to Omerlaziale first. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first, nice canvassing. second, why didn't that user begin a conversation with me? They simply reverted without explanation. As per WP:NLIST, this list article is not notable. And thanks for the civility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is the first time I have faced with a deletion of a page created by myself. That's why I am not really familiar with the procedures on this. Anyway, I have included the relevant sources to the page in question. I have tried to improve the page. Before creating it, I have looked at several similar pages such as Coventry City, Derby Country etc. I saw that the history or the number of matches did not matter in those cases. I know Atalanta does not have a big European competition history. However, they will be playing in Europe after a long time and I though it would be beneficial for the fans who wonder their history to list their matches and statistics in a different page and in a proper format. If there is anything more I need to do to save the page, please tell. Thank you. User:Omerlaziale 19:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In complete agreement with Omerlaziale. The amount of games shouldn't matter; there are sources. Especially with Atalanta's European campaign continuing this year. Who's to say it's not notable? By the way Onel, two wrongs don't make a right, Omerlaziale obviously didn't know your history and didn't think you were going to go straight to deletion. You should've discussed on the article talk page discussion I created first. If you didn't want to discuss there, we'll discuss here, that's why I pinged him. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is canvassing, regardless of the excuse. And incivility is still a lack of civility. And when discussing keeping or deleting, please state policies to back up your position, not simply WP:ILIKEIT arguments.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discuss with you before reverting was a mistake, Onel. You are right on that but please keep in mind that this is the first time I have faced with such a problem. I simply edit pages, update statistics as a hobby. I do not have too much knowledge on other things. I already wrote why I think it could be benefical to have an European football page for Atalanta. I also added the necessary sources. I have looked at different examples from diffetent leagues, and it seems okay to me. By the way, thank you Vaselineeeeeeee for your understanding and support on this. I appreciate that. User:Omerlaziale 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Omerlaziale... my comment was in response to the uncivil commentary by the other editor. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel, if you think my comments were uncivil, that's saddening. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Atalanta has a limited history in Europe, granted, but it is still a history, and one that they're going to add to this season. No reason to delete this article. – PeeJay 08:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - what is your problem? These are all perfectly notable topics, particularly seeing as how Atalanta are in Europe this season. Italia2006 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that Italia2006 was canvassed to this discussion with this edit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude get off your high horse. Did I ask him to say keep? No. He would've seen it anyway. By the way Appropriate notification: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article - Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Italia2006 the latter point, Omerlaziale the former. Their votes are not to be discredited. I'm also curious to see @Struway2: and @Govvy: who said DELETE at Cesena's deletion nom. If you recall PeeJay and GiantSnowman also said Delete/Merge on the last one, but both Keep here. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since they have a history on European competitions and have a chance to add to that this season, I am in favor of keeping the topic as I wrote before. Omerlaziale (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - would any of the keep !votes, excluding the two who were canvassed, care to actually offer a policy reason for their !votes? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. GiantSnowman 15:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. For full disclosure: I received a notification of my name being mentioned as participating at a previous AfD of a "club in European football" page, and don't think I'd have attended this one had I not been notified.

  The difference for me between this and the Cesena page is that Cesena had played precisely one home-and-away match in European competition, while Atalanta have played in two different competitions, five different seasons, and multiple matches. That suggests that while there was no possible justification for spinning out Cesena's European career from the main article, Atalanta's could be. But that doesn't mean it should be.

  The results tables are still in the main article, and there's a bit of prose about Europe in the history section – which is more prose than there is the the article we're discussing here, which has one short sentence: "These are the matches that Atalanta played in Europe." I'm aware that AfD isn't cleanup, but if the question is not notability of subject but appropriateness of spinning off, I'd want to see some attempt at developing the article before I could !vote Keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. These articles have so much room to improve, at times some times have so little time in Europe there-fore an article isn't needed. But as Atalanta B.C. are in European competition again I am inclined to keep. Govvy (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Atalanta B.C.. The years they were in the Europa League can be mentioned under "Honours" in the main article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Robert G. (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note to closer that not a single one of the above keep !votes is based on policy and/or guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft keep, in my personal view, the justification for articles like this should be, decently sourced, and enough content to make it not look ridiculous. The big clubs are fine (although Fiorentina has no refs at all!) but Livorno, which still currently exists as a separate article despite the team heaving only one entry in in Europe, definitely isn't. Chievo is another borderline case. As discussed, I see the tiny lists for Empoli, Cesena, Genoa and Vicenza have been merged back in. Conversely, clubs like Udinese, Bologna and Sampdoria don't have separate articles when I believe they have played enough ties to warrant it (definitely Samp, European Cup finalists and Cup Winners Cup winners!). This Atalanta entry would probably be have fallen in the No side had they not been in this season's competition, which gives it a current interest angle as well as boosting the overall quantity of the stats by some way towards a respectably level. However, as it stands, the tables still wouldn't look out of place in the main club article. Crowsus (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: I've created U.C. Sampdoria in European football and merged A.C. ChievoVerona in European football and A.S. Livorno Calcio in European football into their respective main club articles. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:49, 27 August 2017 (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.