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 no consensus. As to the main article, there is no consensus to delete it but there does seem to be consensus to merge, then delete the individual articles. Editors are asked to finish the mergers and ask for deletion of the individual articles when done. JodyB_talk 11:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All pages have been tagged with AFD's notices removed. Appropriate template was added to the talk pages. JodyB_talk 11:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guadiana Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable friendly competition that does not merit its own article. JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this more non-notable than other friendly competitions, eg. Emirates Cup, Amsterdam Tournament, etc.? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - one of many, many friendly tournaments that are run every year. Topic has not been covered in significant details by independent, reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Generic friendly tournament with no real evidence of notability. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources; only those of questionable reliability, or those from teams who have participated. TheMightyPeanut has made an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and one that ignores the fact that the Emirates Cup gets a reasonable amount of media coverage outside of the primary sources, as did the Amsterdam Tournament; the latter got things such as this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all : WP is not a soccer results service, routine tournament, of no lasting significance. LGA _talk^edits 21:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per above, WP:NOTSTATS. Almost no sourced prose about the tournament or any of its iterations. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be much English-language sources, but there is quite a lot in Portuguese from various independent reliable sources:

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

That would seem to indicate that it passes WP:GNG and I can't agree with any "media coverage" arguments above. I do agree that it fails WP:NOTSTATS though. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, source and improve the main Guadiana Trophy page, delete the season articles. There appears to be plenty of coverage in the Portuguese media for the competition itself, but separate pages just for 3 or 4 football results is ridiculous. If anyone fancied expanding it, the Amsterdam Tournament page, a featured list, looks a likely model to follow. FWIW, I'd also be happy to delete "articles" like 2001 Amsterdam Tournament, which add little to the sum of human knowledge. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Guadiana Trophy, keep the main article. NickSt (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Merge all to Guadiana Trophy, keep the main article. Very fair rationale by Struway2 above. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the parent article, Delete the individual seasons. Struway makes an excellent point (as always). Mentoz86 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struways propsal of merging all seasonal articles to the parent one. FkpCascais (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (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.