- 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) ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Dr Salvus 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jeez, I dunno. First of all there's a possible procedural objection here, in that the proposer put forth about a dozen articles that look very similar. This should be done thru the multiple-article deletion method, right?
- On the merits... yeah it's not really necessary to delete it. It's a decent article, it's not hurting anyone. It was probably made by a soccer-completionist, which is fine with me. We're not running out of paper. The Italian Wikipedia has an article on this entity, and just because we're the English Wikipedia we don't have to be all anglo-centric. The Italian article is pretty long, and has meat we could probably translate over to this article. So we slap a {{Expand Italian|Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania|date=April 2021}} tag on it. That's preferable to throwing the article away. (Granted, the Italian article doesn't provide any more refs tho.)
- And I don't know as it can't be improved, more refs added. Yeah I get that the one ref 404's, but the "External link" is really a ref and can be moved there. Here is a page with some images; there's a whole page there of an Italian newspaper which I think has stuff about the entity (I can't read Italian) and other stuff.
- Somebody went to the trouble of making the article, it looks nice, it has potential for improvement, and what's the upside to deleting it? It's not like Category:1934–35 in Italian football etc. is overflowing, why pare it down more? Herostratus ( talk) 06:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I'm convinced by the arguments made by Herostratus and the possibility of expansion from Italian Wikipedia article, slim on sources but then it was a 1930's event JW 1961 Talk 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any good sources from the Italian page, but it doesn't seem insignificant as an early historical international club tournament. Interestingly, an image search of Italian newspapers came up with contemporary sources showing the tournament likely passes WP:GNG. Probably needs improving, not deleting. SportingFlyer T· C 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure there is any weight behind the keep votes here. Herostratus' comments just seem to be more along the lines of "it's useful and doing no harm" rather than it being notable. JW's comments add little beyond the acknowledgement that sources might be hard to come by. SportingFlyer suggests there are ,pre sources out there but doesn't add any. I'm seeing nothing here other than speculation, but not a clear consensus to delete. Am extending for a week for these sources editors claim to be out there to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 11:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Not sure there is any weight behind the keep votes here. Herostratus' comments just seem to be more along the lines of "it's useful and doing no harm" rather than it being notable. JW's comments add little beyond the acknowledgement that sources might be hard to come by. SportingFlyer suggests there are ,pre sources out there but doesn't add any. I'm seeing nothing here other than speculation, but not a clear consensus to delete. Am extending for a week for these sources editors claim to be out there to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 11:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- No one's speculating. An image search for "Trofeo Cappelli" brings up a number of 1930s newspaper clippings. SportingFlyer T· C 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- So where are they and what do they say that indicates GNG. You can't just say you have done a search and there are sources, you actually need to present them ad indicate how they satisfy GNG. At the moment no one can tell what you are talking about, whether they are articles providing an overview of the competition, or simply routine match reporting / results listing. Yes, you've done a search, great, but it means as much as the next person coming in and saying there aren't sources that satisfy GNG. Until you can present your sources properly and an argument you are simply speculating that GNG is met.
Fenix down (
talk)
12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Considering there's no evidence the delete voters did any sort of before search on this article, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact there are sources. You don't
WP:OWN this discussion.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- If editors have done a search and feel there is nothing what evidence can they provide? We don't need some boiler plate statement whereby they attest they have done a full and detailed search. You need to assume good faith in that instance. How about you stop trying to have a discussion with me, I'm not sure where your nonsensical comments about ownership have come from for example, and start addressing concerns noted below about the sources currently raised, that would be a much better way of trying to gain consensus as to whether this subject is notable. Fenix down ( talk) 07:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Considering there's no evidence the delete voters did any sort of before search on this article, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact there are sources. You don't
WP:OWN this discussion.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- So where are they and what do they say that indicates GNG. You can't just say you have done a search and there are sources, you actually need to present them ad indicate how they satisfy GNG. At the moment no one can tell what you are talking about, whether they are articles providing an overview of the competition, or simply routine match reporting / results listing. Yes, you've done a search, great, but it means as much as the next person coming in and saying there aren't sources that satisfy GNG. Until you can present your sources properly and an argument you are simply speculating that GNG is met.
Fenix down (
talk)
12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - there are a number of screenshots of newspapers about the tournament here. I'm not great with Italian but the coverage appears to be fairly strong. Someone more familiar with Italian sources might be able to help here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - piling on a bit now but the sources linked in the discussion below and in the link that I posted above clearly show that the matches of this tournament received a good amount of coverage and interest Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per the arguments and references of Herostratus and Spiderone. Chirota ( talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
DeleteComment - As I have already commented after the relist I feel I can properly vote on this with reasons, as it would not be proper to close this myself now. You don't need to be an expert in Italian to see the worth of most of the sources in the link SportingFlyer has produced. Working across from left to right in the two rows:
- A photo - no significant coverage
- A very brief, entirely routine match report, no significant coverage beyond routine news reporting - no indication of the provenance of the source and its reliability even if it was significant in length
- Another photo - no text whatsoever
- Another routine match report - covering exactly the same match as reported in number 2 above
- A significant piece of news coverage. Again seems to cover the same final being discussed in 2 and 4, but at least of length that it is conceivable without knowledge of Italian that this discusses the tournament itself in some detail
- A continuation of 4 - clear from the repetition of the headline. Comments above apply but still the same source
- So basically this site has one significant match report that might go into detail about the tournament itself. Even if it does there is not enough here for GNG. This also isn't a review of newspapers as you said you did above, it is a link to a Roma fan site. Not that that necessarily affects the notability of the articles present, but can you provide further sources SportingFlyer from your Newspaper search?
Fenix down (
talk)
15:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. This is from the Roma fan site you mentioned, I am not familiar with Il Littoriale but it's front page coverage. I'm not sure what this article is from but it's clearly significant coverage previewing the matches. This is a match report but shows the tournament received comprehensive coverage, and this is short but directly on the tournament. This book thinks the tournament important enough to include in a year in review, since international club tournaments were more notable back then. An historical Italian newspaper search - which I cannot do - would put this beyond doubt. SportingFlyer T· C 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still concerned with your confidence in leaning towards keep despite your self-admitted inability to tell us what the sources actually say about the tournament. Im also slightly concerned that there is potentially a synthesis of routine match reporting that is being construed as discussion of the tournament, but at least this is substantially better than your previous attempts. I would strongly advise you to continue with this level of discussion rather than more nebulous comments about where sources may or may not exist. However, I'm happy to move from delete to a comment, but not entirely convinced of keep.
Fenix down (
talk)
21:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- We don't do a great job with articles at AfD where sources aren't in English, and we don't do a good job with articles where sources are pre-internet - they require more than a cursory BEFORE search, and searching for sources for these sorts of articles can take time (as I've noted, it'd be a lot easier if I spoke Italian and had access to Italian archival databases.) I still don't see why providing guideposts as to where sources might be found in these situations could possibly be considered problematic - they're not WP:NEXIST arguments, but rather trying to help the discussion by pointing out good places to look in circumstances when searching's difficult, especially when previous discussion has been lacking. SportingFlyer T· C 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still concerned with your confidence in leaning towards keep despite your self-admitted inability to tell us what the sources actually say about the tournament. Im also slightly concerned that there is potentially a synthesis of routine match reporting that is being construed as discussion of the tournament, but at least this is substantially better than your previous attempts. I would strongly advise you to continue with this level of discussion rather than more nebulous comments about where sources may or may not exist. However, I'm happy to move from delete to a comment, but not entirely convinced of keep.
Fenix down (
talk)
21:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per SportingFlyer. Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 21:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Herostratus. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Herostratus. Riteboke ( talk) 08:19, 14 April 2021 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Dr Salvus 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jeez, I dunno. First of all there's a possible procedural objection here, in that the proposer put forth about a dozen articles that look very similar. This should be done thru the multiple-article deletion method, right?
- On the merits... yeah it's not really necessary to delete it. It's a decent article, it's not hurting anyone. It was probably made by a soccer-completionist, which is fine with me. We're not running out of paper. The Italian Wikipedia has an article on this entity, and just because we're the English Wikipedia we don't have to be all anglo-centric. The Italian article is pretty long, and has meat we could probably translate over to this article. So we slap a {{Expand Italian|Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania|date=April 2021}} tag on it. That's preferable to throwing the article away. (Granted, the Italian article doesn't provide any more refs tho.)
- And I don't know as it can't be improved, more refs added. Yeah I get that the one ref 404's, but the "External link" is really a ref and can be moved there. Here is a page with some images; there's a whole page there of an Italian newspaper which I think has stuff about the entity (I can't read Italian) and other stuff.
- Somebody went to the trouble of making the article, it looks nice, it has potential for improvement, and what's the upside to deleting it? It's not like Category:1934–35 in Italian football etc. is overflowing, why pare it down more? Herostratus ( talk) 06:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I'm convinced by the arguments made by Herostratus and the possibility of expansion from Italian Wikipedia article, slim on sources but then it was a 1930's event JW 1961 Talk 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any good sources from the Italian page, but it doesn't seem insignificant as an early historical international club tournament. Interestingly, an image search of Italian newspapers came up with contemporary sources showing the tournament likely passes WP:GNG. Probably needs improving, not deleting. SportingFlyer T· C 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure there is any weight behind the keep votes here. Herostratus' comments just seem to be more along the lines of "it's useful and doing no harm" rather than it being notable. JW's comments add little beyond the acknowledgement that sources might be hard to come by. SportingFlyer suggests there are ,pre sources out there but doesn't add any. I'm seeing nothing here other than speculation, but not a clear consensus to delete. Am extending for a week for these sources editors claim to be out there to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 11:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Not sure there is any weight behind the keep votes here. Herostratus' comments just seem to be more along the lines of "it's useful and doing no harm" rather than it being notable. JW's comments add little beyond the acknowledgement that sources might be hard to come by. SportingFlyer suggests there are ,pre sources out there but doesn't add any. I'm seeing nothing here other than speculation, but not a clear consensus to delete. Am extending for a week for these sources editors claim to be out there to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 11:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- No one's speculating. An image search for "Trofeo Cappelli" brings up a number of 1930s newspaper clippings. SportingFlyer T· C 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- So where are they and what do they say that indicates GNG. You can't just say you have done a search and there are sources, you actually need to present them ad indicate how they satisfy GNG. At the moment no one can tell what you are talking about, whether they are articles providing an overview of the competition, or simply routine match reporting / results listing. Yes, you've done a search, great, but it means as much as the next person coming in and saying there aren't sources that satisfy GNG. Until you can present your sources properly and an argument you are simply speculating that GNG is met.
Fenix down (
talk)
12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Considering there's no evidence the delete voters did any sort of before search on this article, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact there are sources. You don't
WP:OWN this discussion.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- If editors have done a search and feel there is nothing what evidence can they provide? We don't need some boiler plate statement whereby they attest they have done a full and detailed search. You need to assume good faith in that instance. How about you stop trying to have a discussion with me, I'm not sure where your nonsensical comments about ownership have come from for example, and start addressing concerns noted below about the sources currently raised, that would be a much better way of trying to gain consensus as to whether this subject is notable. Fenix down ( talk) 07:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Considering there's no evidence the delete voters did any sort of before search on this article, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact there are sources. You don't
WP:OWN this discussion.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- So where are they and what do they say that indicates GNG. You can't just say you have done a search and there are sources, you actually need to present them ad indicate how they satisfy GNG. At the moment no one can tell what you are talking about, whether they are articles providing an overview of the competition, or simply routine match reporting / results listing. Yes, you've done a search, great, but it means as much as the next person coming in and saying there aren't sources that satisfy GNG. Until you can present your sources properly and an argument you are simply speculating that GNG is met.
Fenix down (
talk)
12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - there are a number of screenshots of newspapers about the tournament here. I'm not great with Italian but the coverage appears to be fairly strong. Someone more familiar with Italian sources might be able to help here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - piling on a bit now but the sources linked in the discussion below and in the link that I posted above clearly show that the matches of this tournament received a good amount of coverage and interest Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per the arguments and references of Herostratus and Spiderone. Chirota ( talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
DeleteComment - As I have already commented after the relist I feel I can properly vote on this with reasons, as it would not be proper to close this myself now. You don't need to be an expert in Italian to see the worth of most of the sources in the link SportingFlyer has produced. Working across from left to right in the two rows:
- A photo - no significant coverage
- A very brief, entirely routine match report, no significant coverage beyond routine news reporting - no indication of the provenance of the source and its reliability even if it was significant in length
- Another photo - no text whatsoever
- Another routine match report - covering exactly the same match as reported in number 2 above
- A significant piece of news coverage. Again seems to cover the same final being discussed in 2 and 4, but at least of length that it is conceivable without knowledge of Italian that this discusses the tournament itself in some detail
- A continuation of 4 - clear from the repetition of the headline. Comments above apply but still the same source
- So basically this site has one significant match report that might go into detail about the tournament itself. Even if it does there is not enough here for GNG. This also isn't a review of newspapers as you said you did above, it is a link to a Roma fan site. Not that that necessarily affects the notability of the articles present, but can you provide further sources SportingFlyer from your Newspaper search?
Fenix down (
talk)
15:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. This is from the Roma fan site you mentioned, I am not familiar with Il Littoriale but it's front page coverage. I'm not sure what this article is from but it's clearly significant coverage previewing the matches. This is a match report but shows the tournament received comprehensive coverage, and this is short but directly on the tournament. This book thinks the tournament important enough to include in a year in review, since international club tournaments were more notable back then. An historical Italian newspaper search - which I cannot do - would put this beyond doubt. SportingFlyer T· C 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still concerned with your confidence in leaning towards keep despite your self-admitted inability to tell us what the sources actually say about the tournament. Im also slightly concerned that there is potentially a synthesis of routine match reporting that is being construed as discussion of the tournament, but at least this is substantially better than your previous attempts. I would strongly advise you to continue with this level of discussion rather than more nebulous comments about where sources may or may not exist. However, I'm happy to move from delete to a comment, but not entirely convinced of keep.
Fenix down (
talk)
21:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- We don't do a great job with articles at AfD where sources aren't in English, and we don't do a good job with articles where sources are pre-internet - they require more than a cursory BEFORE search, and searching for sources for these sorts of articles can take time (as I've noted, it'd be a lot easier if I spoke Italian and had access to Italian archival databases.) I still don't see why providing guideposts as to where sources might be found in these situations could possibly be considered problematic - they're not WP:NEXIST arguments, but rather trying to help the discussion by pointing out good places to look in circumstances when searching's difficult, especially when previous discussion has been lacking. SportingFlyer T· C 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still concerned with your confidence in leaning towards keep despite your self-admitted inability to tell us what the sources actually say about the tournament. Im also slightly concerned that there is potentially a synthesis of routine match reporting that is being construed as discussion of the tournament, but at least this is substantially better than your previous attempts. I would strongly advise you to continue with this level of discussion rather than more nebulous comments about where sources may or may not exist. However, I'm happy to move from delete to a comment, but not entirely convinced of keep.
Fenix down (
talk)
21:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per SportingFlyer. Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 21:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Herostratus. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Herostratus. Riteboke ( talk) 08:19, 14 April 2021 (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.