Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israel_at_the_2014_FIFA_World_Cup_(2nd_nomination) References

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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 14:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup

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

Not notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, the article is about Israel's failed qualification campaign, not their actual participation in the final tournament. Participating in qualifying campaigns is routine and lacks notability. Match information can be included in the national team's result pages, like England national football team results – 2000s.

In addition, I am nominating the following articles for deletion, as just like the 2014 World Cup, Israel did not qualify for the final tournament:

Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 21:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment See here for the talk from the first time it was nominated. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. - Galatz ^Talk 13:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Just to note, the previous nomination resulted in keep due to the poor nomination process of a user. This nomination is much more concise and includes fewer articles. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 14:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

One of them was also renominated and it was unanimous to keep that one, so it wasn't just the way it was nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (2nd nomination). - Galatz ^Talk 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete all These qualifying campaigns are amply covered in the main qualification articles, e.g. 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification, 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA) etc . Number 5 7 21:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete all - Redundant; delete per nom; offering nothing more than what is already in other qualifying tournament articles. Simply put, we don't want to set a dangerous precedent whereby we have articles for every country's failed attempts at qualifying for each tournament that they are eligible for. Spiderone 22:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete all per nom. The information is already covered in articles such as 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group F. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete all the same information is already included and easily accessible in several other articles. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete all - as above, subject does not merit separate articles. Giant Snowman 08:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete all - entirely unnecessary forks which contain nothing but stats that are already contained within the relevant continental qualifying articles. Fenix down ( talk) 09:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep all/Procedural close - Per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Also tagging those who voted last time: Nfitz, Montanabw, Matt294069, doncram, Fenix down, Pharaoh of the Wizards. Additionally the user did not link to the discussion from last time, due to an issue with how the issues with how the person nominated it last time, therefore when initially voted upon no one could see who the original discussion. - Galatz ^Talk 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
- — Note to closing admin: Galatz ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment - the reason for a procedural close last time had nothing to do with the volume of articles, but was to do with the fact that articles were nominated across multiple sports. In this instance WP:NSPORT is not really relevant. I suppose, that WP:SPORTSEVENT can be stretched to apply here, but I would note the specific comments there that state:

Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

I would ask you to demonstrate how you have attempted to follow these suggestions first and how any of the articles above are necessary per WP:SPINOFF and are not simply wholesale copy and pastes from wider continental qualification articles. For example Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup is a total C&P from 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification. The only addition is the copying of the team line up (which we would never normally show bar for specifically notable games) from the reference provided.

Essentially, there is no additional content in any of these, let alone sourced prose, so there is no need for any of these articles per WP:CFORK, nor any attempt made to follow WP:SPORTSEVENT to demonstrate the need for standalone articles prior to their creation. Finally, given that Israel have only qualified for the world cup once, the article titles are inherently misleading. Fenix down ( talk) 14:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

While I do agree that certain content will be duplicated , it certainly is not all duplicated. The roster is one example. While I do agree many of the articles need expansion, the fact that it does I do not believe makes it a fork. You can go into much more detail than any other article would have.

Additionally there are tons of other examples on WP that this is a consistent formatting. For example, what makes this different than Israel at the 2002 Winter Olympics? Why is that needed if all of the information is available at Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics and Short track speed skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics. That article is also just basically statistics so do you think it should be deleted? What makes the Olympics deserve their own page but not the World Cup? - Galatz ^Talk 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The issues I see with you view are as follows:

Firstly these are all forks whether you like it or not.
Secondly, the mere addition of rosters is not sourced prose and is just more stats.
Thirdly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. However, the difference between the Olympic articles and the ones you have created is they have clear overlaps but also clear elements which. Israel at the 2002 Winter Olympics, covers only Israel, but all sports in which they competed, whereas Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics covers one sport, but all the nations that competed at that sport. Although related, they demonstrably cover different subjects. In the cases above, 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification covers qualification for the 1934 world cup for all countries, whereas Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup merely copies an element of it and adds nothing bar a list of players.

There is no useful new content in any of these articles with the possible exception of Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup because in this case they did actually qualify and so the overall article is a useful synthesis of information from multiple places to provide an overarching view. In all the others, this is simply not necessary, since all the information is already contained in one place. Fenix down ( talk) 14:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Agreed, Israel actually participated in the Olympics, but these articles listed are only about their failed tournament qualifications. As for the 1970 World Cup, I did not include it in this AfD, but I accidentally tagged the page, should be removed now. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't see the difference between them, however the way I am reading this, correct me if I am wrong, but you are attempting to use this AfD to draw a line the qualifying is notable but losing in the qualifier is not. If you look at Template:Brazil at the FIFA World Cup you can see Brazil has a page dedicated to each World Cup appearance since 1970. Lets say they don't qualify for the 2018 World Cup, would you say that automatically it cannot have its own article? That would be huge news and for sure would meet the criteria for WP:GNG. All I am seeing is an argument saying they didn't qualify so its not notable, but clearly that logic doesn't apply. If you read WP:MULTIAFD it says "bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy." To me that sounds exactly what you are trying to do, unless I am missing something. - Galatz ^Talk 16:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

All your doing here though is copying and pasting information from one article to another new one without adding anything of substance that is new. WP:SPINOFF is already an established guideline, there is no consensus shaping here at all. I would recommend that your time is better spent trying to show wider GNG for these articles and populate them with sourced prose to support this assertion. Fenix down ( talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

If Brazil failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, it would be huge news since they're Brazil, and they've qualified for every World Cup ever, and I'm sure there would be mass suicides or something because soccer's just that big over there that that kind of thing would happen. You can't say Israel failing to qualify for the World Cup is all that newsworthy, seeing as they've only been to one in their history. It would be considered one of the biggest tragedies in national history if Brazil failed to qualify - not their sporting history, but their nation's history, period. So yes, that would probably be notable. But Israel is not Brazil in terms of their football team, or anywhere close to it. Brazil failing to qualify would be notable not in spite of, but because of the fact that they failed to qualify. That's not the case with Israel. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I do agree they need more expansion, but I do not believe the WP:GNG has not been met. I have already been compiling a list of RS to use to expand 2018 once it has enough games played to at least complete the first round. First example: Game 1 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Game 2 [7] [8] [9] [10] Game 3 [11] [12] [13] [14]. Like I said, I don't disagree with them needing expandsion, you can call them stubs and I wont disagree with that, but I can't see them not meeting WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 18:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

OK, so before you go down that route too far, finding a load of match reports and synthesising an article from them is not GNG. You need to find sources that discuss their world cup journey as a subject in itself. Match reporting is considered WP:ROUTINE as it is ubiquitous at almost any level. I'd also urge you to consider what multiple sources add that a single match report does not and whether that adds to any level of notability. why would you need to provide detailed match summaries in a bespoke article when a single sourced sentence in the national team article would cover it? Anyway, that is a discussion for another place. Fenix down ( talk) 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Some are results, some are previews where they discuss match ups and go more into the details and put it into context, which shows notability. At least the first 2 for each game I have listed above are the preview, not that results. Showing a wide variety of RS discussing the game more than just reporting on it, its not just a preplanned schedule, its more in depth, which makes it not WP:ROUTINE. - Galatz ^Talk 18:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete most but keep Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup because they actually qualified for that. The rest are non-notable forks as I stated in the first nomination (which was procedurally closed for being cross-sported) but that one they actually qualified for, so it meets WP:GNG even if it doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS or whatever the appropriate sports policy is. Delete all as the 1970 article was not nominated for deletion and therefore its status isn't at issue. Rationale still stands. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment Shouldn't the 2018 article be discussed at Redirects for Discussion rather than AfD because it's a redirect? Smartyllama ( talk) 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete all - These all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. I concur with Smartyllama that the 2018 should not be included here since it is a redirect. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment - I invite an uninvolved administrator to review this relisting, and also the relisting habits of Democratics. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: I have undone my relisting but I am open for investigation as what Jkudlick said. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:03, 7 November 2016 (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.