Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendship Trophy

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Trophy

Friendship Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "trophy", which generally only receives any mentions at all from local sources. The one exception is [1], which is routine, and most definitely not significant coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete / Maybe merge - per nom, appears to have very little coverage whatsoever, but seems so random that it might be worth a mention in the two club articles? Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but that's precisely the point, these are only "mentions", where is the significant coverage required by GNG? All the sources you have presented seem to fall under the "passing mention" banner specifically negated by GNG. I can't find anything anywhere that spends any significant time actually discussing this "trophy" as the main focus of an article. Fenix down (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Daily Mail's coverage is also completely meaningless, and is WSC a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may have done for this article by asking on WP Football if anyone can confirm whether it's contested twice a year when the sides are in the same division (as Wikipedia implied), or whether the aggregate score over the two games decides the Trophy (as an article in the Guardian today by Jonathan Wilson claimed). The links dug up by the Rambling Man seem to confirm it's a two-legged tie. So if I've killed the article by drawing attention to it, at least I've got my answer. Thanks! --93.152.14.46 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if an English football "tournament"-type thing isn't updated regularly, and it involves top-division sides, that's generally a sign that notability is marginal at best. (And yes, it was that post which led to this AfD, but I hope that doesn't discourage you in future!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful, being {{
    out of date}} is not a reason to attribute lack of notability. We can easily add a bunch of recent results to make sure it becomes notable if that's your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Bad call. Many articles are out of date here, doesn't mean they're not notable. Not saying this AFD won't succeed, no doubt you'll see this pesky minor article deleted (good riddance to the budgie article, and feel good about removing some information from the encyclopaedia), but it's never a sign of non-notability, just because it hasn't been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of sources, yes - but where is the significant coverage in non-local sources? A few hundred mentions does not generate notability. At most, a one-sentence mention of it on each club's page is valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that the "Calcutta Cup" is both an international match, and it gets a lot of in-depth, non-routine coverage. Neither of those apply to this trophy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you miss the point entirely. The oppose here included that it was an "unofficial tradition" and "not an official trophy". So I was just asking what makes a tradition "official" or "unofficial" and a trophy "official" or "unofficial", as this will be instructive in future AFDs for the football project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Rambling Man. I was by far the most active NCFC fan on Wikipedia (example - note TRM is very much not a Canary!) but I stopped proper content editing in April 2013 and pretty much stopped editing altogether a few months later, so I'm sorry if the article is out of date. --Dweller (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources (sorry if any of these replicate stuff above or already in the article - I'm short of time):

I think my copy of Canary Citizens is too early an edition to include any mention, but I'll see if I can rustle something up from someone with a newer copy. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail isn't reliable, so that one can be ignored immediately. Northern Echo is a local source. The Telegraph bit is routine filler during the lulls in the match, so means nothing. The Talksport ref is not in-depth coverage. Sunderland: A Club Transformed is reasonable, but doesn't show any notability independent of the two clubs involved. The Guardian ref is reasonable, but it's the result of a "phone-in" type thing, so doesn't generate any notability. When Saturday Comes does not provide any in-depth coverage at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail isn't a reliable source?
What's wrong with local sources?
Please ground your objection to the Telegraph in policy or guideline, rather than personal preference
"doesn't show any notability independent of the two clubs involved" please explain how this is an objection to the GNG based on policy or guidance
The Guardian write-up is a sports journalist's piece in an RS, not some fans' blog.
Thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a bit more detail on why none of the sources above contribute to GNG:
  • Daily Telegraphis a minute by minute report of a game, not an article on the Friendship Trophy itself, all premier league games get this sort of
    WP:ROUTINE
    coverage.
  • Talksport essentially observes how non-notable the trophy is as it is an article on useless awards.
  • Book about Sunderland is significant coverage, but more is needed.
  • Guardian is a regular Q&A column about all sorts of questions, this is not an article on the Friendship Trophy and it is not discussed in any significant length.
  • When Saturday Comes is an article about Sunderland the football club, the Friendship Trophy is mentioned only briefly.
  • Northern Echo is another match report which only very, very briefly mentions the existence of the trophy and does not discuss it in any depth whatsoever.
  • Daily Mail Is another match report that only tangentially mentions the Trophy. It also refers to it as the "Friendly Cup", not the Friendship Trophy, suggesting that it is not even notable enough for journalists to agree on a proper name for it.
Not a single one of these sources discusses the trophy in anywhere near the level of depth required by GNG, they consist almost entirely of brief, passing mentions. Please provide sources which discuss the history of the cup, the nature of the trophy itself or documents how the friendly relationship arose. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dweller, I'm shocked that you don't realize/know just how unreliable the Daily Mail is. It's a tabloid newspaper, and one of the worst of its type as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this context though Luke, I think it highly unlikely the Mail would bother writing lies about the Friendship Trophy! It's more relevant that the Mail article isn't actually an article on the trophy, nor does it discuss it at significant length. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writers for the Daily Mail would lie about their own mothers for a quick buck, so I wouldn't be surprised. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this topic passes GNG as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. *
    talk) 12:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Mentoz86:, could you please indicate where in the sources "significant coverage" has been achieved. Fenix down (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer for him. WP:GNG says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A good number of the sources presented explain what the Friendship Trophy is. They're not just passing mentions. --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of us have analysed the sources in detail. They're not significant coverage, and they're definitely not all non-routine. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think it's abundantly clear that you want the article deleted, so there's really no need to continually bang the drum. Time to let the assessing admin decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 6 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Friendship_Trophy&oldid=1089933859"