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. If anyone would like access to the content of this article for the purpose of merging it back to the parent article, let me (or any other admin) know, and I'll restore it to user space. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 04:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Cup 2013 (football)[edit]

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

Non-notable friendly competition that fails WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a association football club competition in its fourth edition (as in 2014), contested by notable association football (such as Rapid Wien, Brondby IF, F.C. Copenhagen, FC Midtjylland, FC Slovan Liberec,FC Spartak Moscow) and currently broadcasted by the TV channel Eurosport. Due to this it futhfills WP:GNG.Rpo.castro (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - fails to establish notability per WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (or citing of such). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Edition of a yearly international tournament of football. 2014 edition has Eurosport coverage.Scblaster (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because something is broadcast does not make it inherently notable, particularly a friendly competition in the off-season. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for Eurosport, not notable for wikipedia...interesting.And the tens of friendly off-season competition articles in the wikipedia?Rpo.castro (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, Eurosport is not WP. Pretty obvious really, they have a need to fill their schedule, you wouldn't have an aticle on each individual friendly football match broadcast simply because it was on Eurosport, so why automatically for every friendly set of matches? Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the presence of other friendly tournaments has no bearing on this discussion. if they are thought by an editor to be non-notable then they should come here for discussion too. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:GNG "...Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation...". The article has 3 secondary independent sources. There is a lot more I could add but since they are from portugueses, danish and swedish snewspapers/news websites, governing bodies and association football organizations, not en english I think thtat wasn't needed. Who claims about the lack of notability should read WP:GNG first.Rpo.castro (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Independent" does not mean "significant" and / or "reliable". The first source is a press release from the company running the event and so is an unreliable primary source as far as GNG goes and hardly independent, the second does discuss the tournament, but only briefly, hardly the level of coverage required by GNG. The final source is merely routine match reporting confirming the games went ahead, with out eve nany commenary or reporting on them. If there are foreing language sources out there that do more than simply produce match reports, please cite them. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More references added.Rpo.castro (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are significant coverage. They are a small newspaper article and a series of very brief match reports. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a footbaal competition. Its shown references with the schedule of the game, news about the matchs, with description of the game play (isn't it the most important about a sport competition), article about the Rapid Victory in the competition, and a detailed article about the Silkeborg IF campaing. Not significant coverage? By which criteria?Rpo.castro (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:ROUTINE, you get match reports about games played at almost any level if you look hard enough. The "article" on Rapid, is 106 words long when you discount the line ups, how can that possibly be considered significant coverage? I presume you mean this for the article on Silkeborg (as the other source is only 58 words long)? This is an article published by the Amendoeira Golf Resort about the team staying at... the Amendoeira Golf Resort! Not a reliable source for GNG as this is a primary source. Please show where there are reliable non-rimary sources that discuss the tournament in detail, not just merely provide match summaries or press releases. Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Individual seasons of this tournament are hardly notable. – Pee Jay 20:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable whether the tournament itself is notable, individual seasons are certainly not per lack of non-trivial WP:RS coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Ohnoitsjamie; the Cup itself is of dubious notability, and there is literally no way that individual iterations are notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly not notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to The Atlantic Cup (football). It's a big enough annual event, televised on EuroSport, it is major enough and there must exist news reports in major media about it, it is worth having a Wikipedia article on it. The main article is not too long to require splitting out separate years yet. This could be a section. Completely deleting it seems unnecessary and probably BITEY. Merging the material seems a compromise. There is now also an AFD on The Atlantic Cup (football), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup (football) which I will oppose. --do ncr am 17:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitey? The article creator has been around almost as long as I have. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Doncram, except for the "bitey" part. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the same reassons as Doncram above. Stepojevac (talk) 15:12, 16 February 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.