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. It may be appropriate to continue discussion about the merits of a possible merge on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhoys from Seville[edit]

The Bhoys from Seville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I've considered nominating this before, as it seems pointless to have an article about a team who came second in Europe's second most prestigious football tournament. With the recent creation of 2003 UEFA Cup Final, this article now seems redundant as any encyclopedic information contained within it is now at the new article. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No offence taken, but it is very much in good faith - as I said in the nomination I didn't nominate until after 2003 UEFA Cup Final was created, and I believe the article's worth should be debated now that the information it holds is within an altogether more encyclopedic article. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take back the bad faith nomination accusation! Your a good editor (even for a bluenose!). Anyway "the Bhoys from Seville" is bigger than the game Estadio Olímpico de la Cartuja (£450 quid well spent) - it became the generic name for the game that created the phenomenon, the whole run and the fans and awards thereafter - as I am sure you will remember (or were ya wtchin the Bill). Anyway I will improve the article and add more sources. --Vintagekits 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'd suggest merging the article into the new one, to be able to include the various details surrounding the match and coverage of it - I just don't see the point in having both articles, and I don't see anything like it anywhere else on Wikipedia. Perhaps something like a more detailed article like this would be better. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the FIFA ref you added just links to the FIFA homepage. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue would be that it is about the whole run rather than just that one game.--Vintagekits 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another article additional info about the run could be added to is this one. Looking at the article, I only see around two paragraphs worth of information which is not already at 2003 UEFA Cup Final, Celtic F.C. or History of Celtic F.C.. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More of a case of expand then delete then I reckon.--Vintagekits 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, do you know what you are even talking about? Where is there more information on this? ANd what do you mean about the title - do you mean like the Lisbon Lions - I despair!--Vintagekits 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lisbon Lions were famous because they won a trophy. Losing in a final does not entitle you to an article. The more encyclopedic title currently has the better article, largely because it is not full of unreferenced cruft like the ridiculous and embarrassing "V for Victory" section. The title of the article should be 2003 UEFA Cup Final, any marginally noteworthy or encyclopedic content from this article can be merged in, and then it can be the redirect it always should have been. Problem solved.--John 00:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even going to continue this with you because you obvious havent a clue about the significance of the Bhoys from Seville.--Vintagekits 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, thats the whole point of my argument - the whole thing became bigger than just the game - infact the fact almost became secondary at one stage.--Vintagekits 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, its not supposed to be about hte DVD - its about the team, The DVD was named after the nickname given to the team.--Vintagekits 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well, in this case it is better to merge the content into History of Celtic F.C.. We are actually talking about a single UEFA Cup campaign. --Angelo 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, its going to be far to big to go in there and there is already a short paragraph on this in that articel. Would you also say the The Lisbon Lions should also be merged into that article?--Vintagekits 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And not even a winning one at that. --John 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which policy states we should delete articles because an editor considers the content "excessive"? Its about notability, not whether you think there is too much information or not. Rockpocket 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me a single (and unsuccessful) UEFA Cup campaign of a football club is absolutely not notable. It has some meaning only in case it becomes part of a larger content, such as "the club's history" for instance. --Angelo 15:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankfully the multiple independent non trivial sources state otherwise - who many other times has a football team before 80,000 fans to an away game?
  • That article would be mainly about the SPL league campaign - this isnt.--Vintagekits 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's absolutely untrue - that article would be about what the title claims, i.e. Celtic FC season 2002-03 (Scottish Cup, UEFA Cup, SPL and any other tournament played by the club in that season). --Angelo 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) There's nothing to say that would be the case - it would be about the season in full and events as notable as the UEFA Cup campaign, in context, would merit a fairly major proportion of the article. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So show me the light. I am unsupportive of the article as it is now, and I am trying to find some kind of agreement, however you don't seem to be interested in it as well. What does the article want to talk about? The UEFA Cup campaign? The sole final match? You see, it's not me who is missing the point. --Angelo 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it must be said that he has a clear bias" - could you explain that? And had the above statement been put in an article, it would require rather a lot of [citation needed] tags. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but the article isnt about the final.--Vintagekits 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything that Maplecelt mentioned above was about the final, though. EliminatorJR Talk 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see Special:Contributions/Coeur-sang. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes it was notable in that context, but the issue is that there is a far more encyclopedic - in my opinion - article on the subject. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Or we could just decide for ourselves if the article is notable enough for Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • thats exactly my point. take a look around review information with regards to it. then you can make an informed decision if it should or shouldn't go. you can't decide if something is notable or not if you don't have the facts. If you want to take part in the discussion all i'm saying is be aware of the subject matterMaplecelt 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can't control what external sites do. If I started twelve sites about my pet frog, could I start a Wikipedia article about it because they show up in a Google search? - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what in Gods name has that to with anything? my point is do research and be informed on an issueMaplecelt 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would I research a subject that in my opinion isn't notable? - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you decide if something is notable if you don't know anything about it? if that is your attitude then your views are of no help to wikipediaMaplecelt 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a merge would be inappropriate as there is no clear fit. The Lisbon Lions and the 1967 European Cup Final have different articles and rightly so, and this is the exact same situation. The Bhoys from Seville is about more than just the Final game, infact the Bhoys from Seville also has a legacy and was supposed to be the springboard that future teams were supposed to be built on and this is referenced in the Pearson source in the article. This showes that the Bhoys from Seville dont and cant be fitted into any current existing article and the precedent is there to have the the article as it stands and the proposed name changes or merge havent been thought through properly.--Vintagekits 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Excellent reasoning there. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Why thanks....and the horse you rode in on!--Domer48 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, great comment - this team was the most notable team in Scottish football for thirty years - if we can have an article on every single player that in the Scottish league for the past thirty years then it is ludicrous to try and attempt to delete this article or cram it into an inappropriate article.--Vintagekits 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most notable in European football of course. Apart from Aberdeen, and alongside Dundee United. And Pever's argument to me would support the creation of Celtic F.C. season 2002-03. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again the issue of a merge is complicated, your suggestion of a merge to Celtic F.C. season 2002-03 is flawed on a number of levels. 1. An article on the season as a whole would also include the campaigns in the SFA cup, the league cup, champions league and not forgetting the whole SPL league campaign as well as the UEFA run. 2. This was a specific and notable campaign and team is therefore is worthy of its own article - there are other reasons which I was type out later but I am bored of arguing at the momment.--Vintagekits 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or merge with Celtic F.C. - something of a vanity piece, and, in any event, not sufficiently important for its own article, unless we are going to create articles for every interesting match ever played. Kirkbynative 17:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC) User has been indefblocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com SirFozzie 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- this is not an article on a match - please reread it - it is on a UEFA Cup campaign. And yes, if there are other interesting well-sourced campaigns then create an aritcle for them; we are not limited on server space. Merging with Celtic is simply not sensible; it would grossly overbalance that article.Bridgeplayer 19:53, 16 June 2007 (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