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. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ConIFA World Football Cup[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; the original concern, namely that this is a non-notable, minor tournament that fails WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, remains. Giant Snowman 12:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Biggest ever non-FIFA tournament (12 teams) with coverage in media in at least 20 countries including Swedish prime time news, national radio, Canadians largest Francophile newspaper and many more. If more sources are needed I would happily add them. Just added about 10 for now from major media in different languages. Best reason to keep it and the reason I made it is that this seems to be the biggest and most notable non-FIFA World Cup ever. It has more teams than any other, it has all the "powerhorses" and with Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia 2 of the not-recognized nations included. Regarding the fact it is still 5 month before kickoff the media echo seems amazing, too. I found tons of articles in all kind of languages about that. I am really looking forward to it. Besides there is only very vague info (tbh: only speculations and no info) in the article about the 2014_VIVA_World_Cup so that it seems this one will not happen. So this ConIFA thing is probably the "new" legit World Cup for those teams. NikauTokelau (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP . CONIFA World Football Cup 2014 is the official World Championships for teams outside FIFA. The tournament have massive global media interest and you can find huge articles about the tournament and CONIFA in general in TV, Magazines and Radio in Sweden, Canada, Germany, Italy, France, USA, Unikted Kingdom, India as examples. The World Football Cup 2014 will be produced in a high professional way: 8 HD cameras, professional TV crew and producers and broadcasted worldwide through TV and Internet and have already today a huge global interest. This is also the biggest tournament ever outside FIFA. 12 teams participating from 4 continents, a huge cultural and youth exchange program with multiple youths from Europe and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.82.227 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The ConIFA World Football Cup is not at all non-notable or minor. ConIFA has more than 20 football associations as member, it reaches hundreds of players and thousands of footballfans all over the world, from Zanzibar to the Isle of Man, from Nagorno-Karabakh to the Sapmi. There will be 12 teams at the World Cup in Ostersund. They all will send at least 25 people to Sweden. Although we are still more then 4 months before the kick off, ConIFA reached a lot off media, in Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy. There were already a lot of articles in newspapers and magazines, ConIFA got prime time on national television in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.148.100 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I must say I am very surprised that this one was even proposed to be deleted. For what reason ? I mean, how can you rate that one as not notable ? As my predecessors said it is the biggest ever non-FIFA tournament. I am a huge fan and follower of non-FIFA for a couple of yours now and this one surely is the big deal we are waiting for since day 1 of non-FIFA. Wiki community once decided that non-FIFA football in general is notable. If so this tournament is the most notable thing inside non-FIFA. Obviously the plenty of sources (never seen that many in any other non-FIFA article before) proof that, too. DJLiesel (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough detailed coverage in third party sources to meet GNG. The few non primary sources in the article at this time do not convince me of notability at this time. However that is not to say they won't at a future date.Blethering Scot 18:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a constructive criticism. I added some more sources from Quebec, Occitania, Sweden, Ecuador, Kurdistan and so on. Kurdistan Olympic Committee had loads about this tournament, too. But their homepage is down unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikauTokelau (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a WP:BOMBARD tactic does not demonstrate any additional notability. Giant Snowman 19:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are very welcome to help and remove the sources you see as not reliable or not helping to prove notability.NikauTokelau (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- This was a wrong decision. WP:BOMBARD is not a fit the article. -Pending ^{Tell me I screwed up!} 23:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DJLiesel. Mannix Chan (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_do_I_ref_enough_but_avoid_WP:BOMBARD_simultaneously Mannix Chan (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs added indicate a relatively substantial level of coverage in a number of significant news sources at national level that go beyond trivial coverage, including outlines of the tournament and interviews with some of the competing nations about the tournament. Seems a GNG pass to me. Not sure how Bombard is relevant here, it would be preferable were the multiple sources appended to the short history section used to expand that section, but they go into more detail than simply stating that the tournament is going ahead. The article needs expansion based on the sources provided not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. Mentoz (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (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.