Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Academy

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 redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. (non-admin closure) — Chevvin 22:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Academy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upgraded to AfD due to PROD removal. This is duplication of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy and the article isn't needed and doesn't need to be merged. Govvy (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I had added a Merge proposal to this but it looks like all the info is already in the other article mentioned above, so a Deletion would suffice. It looks like the main reason behind creating the article was simply "but Arsenal have one" (I have also marked that article to be merged into its 'relative' along with a few 'doublers' for other clubs).Crowsus (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Because the creator of the article did the same when he straight copied reserve and academy page to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves which was deleted. And now that just directs back to what I created years before in 2006 was it? the same again happened, he copied parts to a new Academy page these are created in 2014! Govvy (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi I removed the deletion tag, but at that moment I did not notice that there was already an article at Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. I apologize for my mistake, I should not have removed the deletion tag. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. Giant Snowman 09:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not sure why redirect isn't the obvious solution. Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do you think we need a redirect? If the original article has the most links and use, then people are less likely to use the redirect or come across it. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't off-hand think of an example where the article title is "A and B" where both "A" and "B" wouldn't be plausible search terms. Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - it's definitely a plausible search term Spiderone 19:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As a plausible search term. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - blank and redirect, as others mention it is a valid search term. Once again sorry for my initial edit. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems a perfectly plausible search term. Is what I would type if I was looking for an article on the academy. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per Fenix down DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above--Kostas20142 (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2017 (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.