Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Club América season

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. Again, I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed by wikipedia users and also, approved, now is censored with new terms. The article has 8 sources/references/links, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] source number 1 refers to Biyik playing for the club during the 94-95 season, reference number 2 is regards the season 94-95 for Raul Gutierrez being his first one with the club, reference number 3 clearly states Del Olmo was a transfer in for the club for the 94-95 season. Reference number 5 clearly states Kalusha played for the club during the 94-95 season and was another transfer in for the club. References 5 and 6 clearly states Beenhakker situation after was sacked during 94-95 season, reference number 7 clearly states a review of the postseason for the club during 94-95 season. Reference/source/link number 8 was used to structure the squad subsection, the transfers subsection, the comopetitions section and the matches subsection is a RSSSF link even used on

1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Excuse me Mister user:Bruxton Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Club America season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regards the section of matches I used the RSSSF source link. For the squad, transfers and players statistics I used the next source http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html HugoAcosta9 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You used a source that is not mentioned in the article? The Banner talk 22:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it is mentioned in the article section Statistics subsection players statistics at the end of the table. For the position by round subsection and matches of the season section I used http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mex95.html the RSSSF 94-95 Mexico season mentioned in the Summary section. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to have used the rsssf as source but that is never mentioned in the article. Not once. Sorry, but I think we have a

WP:CIR-issue here. The Banner talk 09:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The article was reviewed by

1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You mean that you are now adding RSSSF everywhere. You know that that website is copyright protected? The Banner talk 17:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not false, you are trying to whitewash your earlier copyright-infringement. The Banner talk 20:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep I don't get the nomination, you can collect sources easily enough for the season, newspaper archives, a few books online, there are other databases you can use as sources to collect links. Govvy (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And they are included [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12] through an excellent prose following wikipedia rules, however
1994-95 C.D. Veracruz season, 1994-95 Tigres UANL season, 1994-95 Correcaminos UAT season and this one. Meanwhile, every day user:Sakiv launches thousands of soulless articles without prose, transforming Wikipedia in a giant Panini scorecard album. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not obsessed with your articles. I am prtotecting Wikipedia from editors that produce substandard articles and who try to whitewash copyright violations. And please, do not decent into personal attacks. The Banner talk 14:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing HugoAcosta9 of whitewashing copyright violations is a serious accusation. What is your evidence of this? Either back up your charge or retract it. Ravenswing 02:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An in-season source was found not related to RSSF. Source listed below lists the team's transfer window transactions.

Macias, J. L. (1995, Jan 06). Chivas y morelia unicos equipos sin cambios para la segunda vuelta. La Opinión Retrieved from https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/chivas-y-morelia-unicos-equipos-sin-cambios-para/docview/368106807/se-2

There were also coaching changes mid-season and some optimism that the team could make the final as reported below.

Cervantes, R. (1995, Apr 08). Opiniones. La Opinión Retrieved from https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/opiniones/docview/368198932/se-2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inomyabcs (talk • contribs)

Keep: This AfD of a top-flight domestic league season in Mexico isn't quite so egregiously bad as The Banner going after Real Madrid seasons (for pity's sake), but it is far from good. Nom plainly hadn't the faintest notion of meeting his obligations under
WP:BEFORE, nor any legitimate basis to accuse the article creator of copyvio. A casual search turns up many sources. Why wasn't this even attempted before the nomination? Ravenswing 02:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, another AfD with false claims and accusations by the nom. At the time of nomination, it had 8 sources, including something like this which is obviously about the season, and rather indepth. The idea that a season of a top club in football-crazy Mexico would not have sources available at all is rather farfetched, and they don't even have to be in the article to avoid AfD: but here the sources were already provided, but nom decided to proceed anyway. The result is that we have lost a productive editor who had a total (and unacceptable) meltdown over this, other editors need to spend time arguing about articles which never should have been nominated in the first place, and the nom walks away whistling.
Fram (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
- I did no claim at all that the article was unsourced. The Banner talk 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nom: "Season-article without any sources for the season itself " my reply: "At the time of nomination, it had 8 sources, including something like this which is obviously about the season" (emphasis added). But thanks for indicating your reading skills again with this reply.
    Fram (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - I am more concerned about your reading skills and provocations now. The Banner talk 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Feel free to add it to the ANI discussion, together with the "speedy keeps" of your last 8 or so AfDs which have all been closed as a "waste of time". But points for wittiness, replying to a comment with "no, you are" is refreshing.
        Fram (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      @
      Fram take it to your talk pages, the open AN/I or another conduct board please and let this discussion continue on subject's merit. Star Mississippi 13:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - I prefer not to let an editor get away with making frivilous AfDs with false claims in the nom as part of a hounding pattern, and then let them try some stupid strawman arguments instead of adressing the actual mistakes they made. That seems directly relevant to the AfD, which the Banner could speed up by withdrawing their now and pinging the only delete to indicate that there were sources all along (@
        Fram (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        I know there were sources - I checked the article - but I was (and remain) of the view they were not enough for GNG. More than happy to be persuaded otherwise, however... Giant Snowman 17:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That´s disappointing. You are supposed to look for sources in general, not just base you on what´s in the article already, and even more so xhen it is obvious from this and other AFD´s that the nom didn´t do a before. A quick search gives us e.g. this, this, this, this... a very, very easy GNG pass.
        Fram (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        
        Anyway, I've added it to the ANI.
        Fram (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        
        I think we likely E/Ced @
        Fram as we nearly did here. Same goal. Have a good one. Star Mississippi 14:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Keep baseless copyright allegations notwithstanding, there are more than enough sources to pass GNG.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - not surprisingly, many references are provided above. Good grief, this time was arguably the best team in North America that season. A dreadful BEFORE failure from User:The Banner. Can they withdraw it? Nfitz (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far they've refused (see also their talk) and it appears unlikely. Star Mississippi 01:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, either this was a bad faith nomination or The Banner really is that terrible at picking articles to nominate (and his record as a nom is just barely over 50%, which with the sheer number of articles he's nominated is appalling). Ravenswing 02:30, 23 October 2022 (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.