- 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 move to draft. While there are also arguments for outright deletion, these contribute toward the general consensus that this article is not, in its current state, suitable to be in mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
1971 Salvadoran Primera División
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 1971 Salvadoran Primera División ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador. Shellwood ( talk) 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Per
WP:NOTDONE, subject its self is notable.--
PiccklePiclePikel (
talk) 15:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Then please fill in the many "TBD"'s. I guess those facts are decided for a competition about 50 years ago.
The Banner
talk 08:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Someone should fill them in at some point. Given the article was created by @ BKReruns only 2 days ago maybe we should give them a bit more chance to add information?
- To those saying "delete" because of notability concerns, notability is not the issue, this article was not nominated for deletion for lack of notability. The notability is obvious, it is an article about the 1971 season of the top level/top division/top flight football league in El Salvador. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 13:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- So, even without content you consider it notable? Based on what? No article is automatically notable. The Banner talk 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Then please fill in the many "TBD"'s. I guess those facts are decided for a competition about 50 years ago.
The Banner
talk 08:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Per @ PiccklePiclePikel:. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 16:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify as a reasonable alternative to deletion in this case; subject is potentially notable but sources don't demonstrate this. I disagree that the subject is inherently notable; in fact, neither of the two keep comments have explained why this subject is supposed to be notable. The article is incomplete and not at all suitable for mainspace since it has barely any substantive content. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify The subject is likely to be notable, but the article isn't suitable in its current state. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 move to draft. While there are also arguments for outright deletion, these contribute toward the general consensus that this article is not, in its current state, suitable to be in mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
1971 Salvadoran Primera División
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 1971 Salvadoran Primera División ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador. Shellwood ( talk) 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Per
WP:NOTDONE, subject its self is notable.--
PiccklePiclePikel (
talk) 15:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Then please fill in the many "TBD"'s. I guess those facts are decided for a competition about 50 years ago.
The Banner
talk 08:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Someone should fill them in at some point. Given the article was created by @ BKReruns only 2 days ago maybe we should give them a bit more chance to add information?
- To those saying "delete" because of notability concerns, notability is not the issue, this article was not nominated for deletion for lack of notability. The notability is obvious, it is an article about the 1971 season of the top level/top division/top flight football league in El Salvador. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 13:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- So, even without content you consider it notable? Based on what? No article is automatically notable. The Banner talk 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Then please fill in the many "TBD"'s. I guess those facts are decided for a competition about 50 years ago.
The Banner
talk 08:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Per @ PiccklePiclePikel:. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 16:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify as a reasonable alternative to deletion in this case; subject is potentially notable but sources don't demonstrate this. I disagree that the subject is inherently notable; in fact, neither of the two keep comments have explained why this subject is supposed to be notable. The article is incomplete and not at all suitable for mainspace since it has barely any substantive content. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify The subject is likely to be notable, but the article isn't suitable in its current state. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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.