Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville - Wikipedia


Article Images
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. It may be appropriate to continue discussion about the merits of a possible merge on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhoys from Seville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I've considered nominating this before, as it seems pointless to have an article about a team who came second in Europe's second most prestigious football tournament. With the recent creation of 2003 UEFA Cup Final, this article now seems redundant as any encyclopedic information contained within it is now at the new article. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
  • Merge and redirect to the relevant section of History of Celtic F.C. Deletion & merging is not an option according to GFDL. Qwghlm 20:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra Strong Keep, very notable team and cup run. It was Celtic's first European cup final and they brought 80,000 supporters to Seville and got two awards (FIFA and UEFA) because of it. It was front page news in Ireland and Scotland for weeks and there has been videos and books produced about it. It was a phenomenon (sp?) Also this is possibly a bad faith nomination (no offense Arch) because the nominator is a Rangers fan and this is about a Celtic topic. P.S. Lets not forget the "multiple non-trivial indepenent sources" that document it and therefore passes WP:N and WP:V--Vintagekits 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offence taken, but it is very much in good faith - as I said in the nomination I didn't nominate until after 2003 UEFA Cup Final was created, and I believe the article's worth should be debated now that the information it holds is within an altogether more encyclopedic article. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take back the bad faith nomination accusation! Your a good editor (even for a bluenose!). Anyway "the Bhoys from Seville" is bigger than the game Estadio Olímpico de la Cartuja (£450 quid well spent) - it became the generic name for the game that created the phenomenon, the whole run and the fans and awards thereafter - as I am sure you will remember (or were ya wtchin the Bill). Anyway I will improve the article and add more sources. --Vintagekits 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'd suggest merging the article into the new one, to be able to include the various details surrounding the match and coverage of it - I just don't see the point in having both articles, and I don't see anything like it anywhere else on Wikipedia. Perhaps something like a more detailed article like this would be better. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the FIFA ref you added just links to the FIFA homepage. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another article additional info about the run could be added to is this one. Looking at the article, I only see around two paragraphs worth of information which is not already at 2003 UEFA Cup Final, Celtic F.C. or History of Celtic F.C.. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More of a case of expand then delete then I reckon.--Vintagekits 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lisbon Lions were famous because they won a trophy. Losing in a final does not entitle you to an article. The more encyclopedic title currently has the better article, largely because it is not full of unreferenced cruft like the ridiculous and embarrassing "V for Victory" section. The title of the article should be 2003 UEFA Cup Final, any marginally noteworthy or encyclopedic content from this article can be merged in, and then it can be the redirect it always should have been. Problem solved.--John 00:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even going to continue this with you because you obvious havent a clue about the significance of the Bhoys from Seville.--Vintagekits 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rework im not sure it should be merged into the 2003 UEFA Cup Final as that just deals with the final the article could be expanded to include the entire campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryob (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. It appears to be the title of a widely available DVD [1]. IIRC, there was certainly significant media coverage of Celtic's road to Seville beyond the back pages, such was the scale of the fans' response. It may require some work to bring it into shape and perhaps the DVD should be the focus, but I'm not sure what policy says being a runner up makes you inherently non-notable, as seems to be suggested by the first few respondants. Rockpocket 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which policy states we should delete articles because an editor considers the content "excessive"? Its about notability, not whether you think there is too much information or not. Rockpocket 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me a single (and unsuccessful) UEFA Cup campaign of a football club is absolutely not notable. It has some meaning only in case it becomes part of a larger content, such as "the club's history" for instance. --Angelo 15:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankfully the multiple independent non trivial sources state otherwise - who many other times has a football team before 80,000 fans to an away game?
  • That's absolutely untrue - that article would be about what the title claims, i.e. Celtic FC season 2002-03 (Scottish Cup, UEFA Cup, SPL and any other tournament played by the club in that season). --Angelo 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) There's nothing to say that would be the case - it would be about the season in full and events as notable as the UEFA Cup campaign, in context, would merit a fairly major proportion of the article. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So show me the light. I am unsupportive of the article as it is now, and I am trying to find some kind of agreement, however you don't seem to be interested in it as well. What does the article want to talk about? The UEFA Cup campaign? The sole final match? You see, it's not me who is missing the point. --Angelo 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- sourced and expansionable potential. Although it should be renamed to a less "tabloid" title. Astrotrain 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would have to say a strong keep and while some may call me bias, thats fine but the person that what the article deleted is a Rangers Supporter. So his objectivity on this issue has to be questioned, while I don't think that personal attacks are right it must be said that he has a clear bias. I believe it should be kept because Celtic recieved awards from fifa and uefa for the supporters behaviour. Some estimates put the number of supporters at more than 80,000 which is unprecedented in European football. Several books and films have been made about the Celtic supporters in Seviile. The people of Seville still welcome and praise Celtic supporters each year. Many friendships between Celtic supporters and the locals have continued to endure 4 years later. The head of Uefa traveled to Celtic Park to present a award to the supporters which is very unique indeed. The event stands something memorable to the people of Seville as much as it does to Celtic.Maplecelt 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you name is we are the people and is in red and blue indicating that you are a rangers supporter. which indicates that you have a bias on the issue. as do I it must be said. So if anything we should both remove ourselves from teh discussion and it should be left to those that aren't involved in the Rangers/Celtic Rivilary to decide this article.Maplecelt 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep* This event was notable on so many levels other than football and merits inclusion. The behaviour of the Celtic FC supporters and the resulting award is a standard set for other supporters to aspire to.Coeur-sang 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see Special:Contributions/Coeur-sang. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable event but name should be changed urgently as bhoys is not a word in the English language (if survives afd I will move the article), SqueakBox 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the name should stay the same as this was the most common name for the team and the season article would not be specific to the UEFA which was the biggest event in Scottish football for 20 years. Also I believe that 'Bhoys' is in the oxford dictionaryMaplecelt 13:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per NeoChaosX. No idea how this article got past its initial incarnation. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this European run was the greatest achievement by a Scottish football team in nineteen years. There have been several video releases regarding this run of games, such as STV's "The Bhoys From Seville". I would submit that a team from one of the world's weakest leagues reaching the final of the world's second most prestigious club soccer competition is worthy of comment. The article is both notable and unbiased, and the suggestion that it should be deleted is, in my opinion, simply sour grapes <personal attack removed per WP:NPA>Rockpocket 00:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by TamB (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • Comment a) The Scottish Premier League isn't THAT weak, and b) The UEFA Cup isn't the world's second most prestigious club competition, only Europe's second. I'm neutral about this one at the moment. - fchd 11:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per NeoChaosX. If the article on Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs was deleted as non-notable then this should also be deleted. However, perhaps the information should be included as Angelo's suggestion in an article created for Celtic F.C. season 2002-03. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move the article to Celtic F.C. season 2002-03 as suggested above. The Bhoys from Seville article has too many small sections and a bit too much trivial information. All of this could be condensed into 3 or so comprehensive paragraphs and Celtic's domestic season could be covered in the rest of the article. I guess every article should aspire to become featured or a GA at least, and that would be impossible if this one is limited to a single cup campaign. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the most notable events in Scottish football in the last decade. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 11:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes it was notable in that context, but the issue is that there is a far more encyclopedic - in my opinion - article on the subject. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • thats exactly my point. take a look around review information with regards to it. then you can make an informed decision if it should or shouldn't go. you can't decide if something is notable or not if you don't have the facts. If you want to take part in the discussion all i'm saying is be aware of the subject matterMaplecelt 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can't control what external sites do. If I started twelve sites about my pet frog, could I start a Wikipedia article about it because they show up in a Google search? - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a merge would be inappropriate as there is no clear fit. The Lisbon Lions and the 1967 European Cup Final have different articles and rightly so, and this is the exact same situation. The Bhoys from Seville is about more than just the Final game, infact the Bhoys from Seville also has a legacy and was supposed to be the springboard that future teams were supposed to be built on and this is referenced in the Pearson source in the article. This showes that the Bhoys from Seville dont and cant be fitted into any current existing article and the precedent is there to have the the article as it stands and the proposed name changes or merge havent been thought through properly.--Vintagekits 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Excellent reasoning there. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Why thanks....and the horse you rode in on!--Domer48 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Support exists for inclusion of sporting campaigns even when consisting of a few notable cricket test matches – refer to AfD re Bangladeshi_cricket_team_in_Australia_in_2003. The CelticFC 2003 campaign was made notable by the tournament, size of the travelling support, fan awards issued by the organizing bodies, and the broadly accepted title given to this campaign as adopted in the article title - and as used in newspaper reports per a Google search (and as cited in the article). This article records the campaign rather than the results of the 2003 UEFA Cup Final, and it cannot be merged to 2003 UEFA Cup Final without then expanding that article to include the potentially less notable campaigns of each participant. The article is now well cited. Pever 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, great comment - this team was the most notable team in Scottish football for thirty years - if we can have an article on every single player that in the Scottish league for the past thirty years then it is ludicrous to try and attempt to delete this article or cram it into an inappropriate article.--Vintagekits 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most notable in European football of course. Apart from Aberdeen, and alongside Dundee United. And Pever's argument to me would support the creation of Celtic F.C. season 2002-03. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again the issue of a merge is complicated, your suggestion of a merge to Celtic F.C. season 2002-03 is flawed on a number of levels. 1. An article on the season as a whole would also include the campaigns in the SFA cup, the league cup, champions league and not forgetting the whole SPL league campaign as well as the UEFA run. 2. This was a specific and notable campaign and team is therefore is worthy of its own article - there are other reasons which I was type out later but I am bored of arguing at the momment.--Vintagekits 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or merge with Celtic F.C. - something of a vanity piece, and, in any event, not sufficiently important for its own article, unless we are going to create articles for every interesting match ever played. Kirkbynative 17:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC) User has been indefblocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com SirFozzie 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- this is not an article on a match - please reread it - it is on a UEFA Cup campaign. And yes, if there are other interesting well-sourced campaigns then create an aritcle for them; we are not limited on server space. Merging with Celtic is simply not sensible; it would grossly overbalance that article.Bridgeplayer 19:53, 16 June 2007 (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.