Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 EHF Women's Champions League qualifying phase
- 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 delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2011–12 EHF Women's Champions League qualifying phase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is nothing more just a copy/paste of a section of the 2011–12 EHF Women's Champions League article. (See history, as it has been cut off.) Actually, the article have been torn apart with high hand, making it quite hard to follow, especially for a layman. There are expressions that appear main article, but there is not a single hint where that comes (as you have to read the qualifying section first to understand). I don't see a single reason to divide the article (it is not too long or effusive), like never was in the past seasons. It's okay to create a sub-article, if it is some expansion of the shortly written info in the main article, but in this case I think it's completely unneccessary and just destroys the consistency of the article, that should be solved if the quali phase would be put back to the original article. Thehoboclown (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not needed and does not use much space. Kante4 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 00:28, 12 July 2011 (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.