Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CTFA International Tournament

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. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CTFA International Tournament

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

Not notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The page is unsourced, the "tournament" is a minor invitational friendlies between low-ranking countries and it is uncertain if this competition is ever going to happen again. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following subpage for the same reasons:

^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per WP:RAPID. This seems like a rush to judgement, as the tournament is currently underway. I found 742 articles pages mentioning this tournament, and 41 news articles (searching using languages other than English might help). There may be more news articles in the future, particularly in the media of the nations involved. WP:SPORTSEVENT doesn't seem to mention international tournaments at all as it seems to only address club games, but they could be included under "all-star or similar exhibition games." However, I suggest merging the two articles. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: it's now 1,880 results from a news search and 6,020 results from an overall web search in English, likely many more in languages of the nations involved. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what do these say? Ghits do not necessarily equal WP:SIGCOV. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Detailed match reports, commentary about player selection. The essay that you are using to argue for deletion refers to local newspaper coverage of high school and college sports. These are national newspapers and television addressing the topic directly and in detail, coverage of national teams in international competition, with long-term implications for national teams and international competition because these games affect FIFA rankings for four national teams in the most popular sport in the world. This is significant coverage, as would be expected. This AfD originates from a couple of Filipino soccer fans who are concerned that the PFF didn't send its strongest team (omitting players involved in professional league playoffs), and that the Philippines national men's team would lose to a team that is lower on FIFA rankings. This is exactly what has happened twice. In addition, the win by lowly Timor-Leste over the Philippines is a huge event for association football in East Timor. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - tournament is ongoing, coverage is still coming up. If this AFD was proposed a couple months for now with the situation on WP:GNG clearer than my !vote would be different, but for now to propose an article for deletion at this stage is frankly unneeded. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. It seems highly unlikely to me that this is non-notable, versus having little coverage in English. See whether there are corresponding articles at zh.wikipedia, etc., and someone who knows Chinese and other relevant language can also independently look for reliable news sources. An international pro competition in a major sport is almost always notable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 05:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- tournament matches are listed as "A" internationals on FIFA list of matches. I do not support merging as it is common practice to have one article for tournament and another for individual additions.

--Gri3720 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fundamentally, this is a friendly competition. Jack N. Stock's Keep vote, merely talks about mentions, I'm not sure I am seeing WP:SIGCOV, Inter&anthro#s view is little more than WP:ILIKEIT, and Gri3720's assertion that it should be kept because the matches are all FIFA a-list matches is not grounded in any guideline. None of the keep votes here are indicating any sources which are showing significant coverage of the tournament as an event, and I am not convinced, given that these are friendly matches, that there is anything out there other than routine match reporting. Whatever the outcome of this AfD, there is certainly no need for both an article on the tournament and an article on the 2017 tournament given that this is the one and only occurance of the tournament so far, so if it is decided to keep the main article, the season should, for now, be merged. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misintrpereted my !vote Fenix Down, it has nothing to do with me liking the article or not, rather I don't see how one can nominate an article for deletion saying that it is unscourced and hasn't received significant coverage when the tournament in question is still ongoing. Even if the tournament itself never happens again the two article can still be eventually be merged, but since this is supposed to be the successor of the Long Teng Cup I doubt that will happen. Also see 2011 Nations Cup for a nation's tournament that received significant coverage and passed WP:GNG, I'm sure given time this article will too. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that works, either the subject has received significant coverage or it hasn't. Where are the sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Fenix down (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage by national newspapers checks all the boxes for WP:SIGCOV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, I'm not seeing much beyond trivial mentions and routine match reporting, but that may be a language barrier thing. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the essay that you are using to argue for deletion refers to local newspaper coverage of high school and college sports. These are national newspapers and television from at least four nations addressing the topic directly and in detail. Coverage of national teams in international competition in national media is very different to coverage of high school football in a small-town newspaper. Furthermore, it is much more than routine coverage, such as box scores or even a game summary. There are analytical articles such as this. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're just examples of routine coverage. Bar the one source you have mentioned, I'm still not seeing significant coverage of the tournament as an event. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - main article and merge / redirect the 2017 tournament. With further thought, it does seem like there is some significant coverage of the tournament, particularly the aftermath of the final results, which goes beyond routine match reporting in third party sources in the 2017 article. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep of 2017 CTFA International Tournament and Delete CTFA International Tournament, you don't know if they will host the tourney next year, but the 2017 page has some merit. International matches do tend to have decent coverage and I am sure this has some interesting coverage in Asia, there are some interesting citations there. I don't see the need to have two articles. Govvy (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it should be the other way round? The tournament page kept outlining the 2017 edition and the 2017 page redirected to the tournament page? Fenix down (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down:, nope I think I have it the right way round, then after that's done, I would rename the page with the most information to the deleted one. Govvy (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though given there is only one iteration I don't think that we need clarify that in the article title just yet. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 8 December 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.