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. Sandstein 12:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and do not merge. The subject isn't notable enough to have this on a separate page, and even with that this is needless trivia. Why not include
Japan or
Brazil since they haven't qualified either?
Ilovereo222 (
talk) 16:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Because it's obvious to any halfway intelligent reader that they haven't qualified. By that logic, why not include basketball teams or club teams?Smartyllama (
talk) 18:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I've stricken the club teams part. But I'm keeping the basketball team part, as applied to national teams, since by your logic they're "national teams" and should be included in the list.
Smartyllama (
talk) 14:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Also read the first line of the page (after the deletion template).
Ilovereo222 (
talk) 16:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
It should still be obvious to any intelligent reader that only UEFA teams can qualify for the UEFA Championship. And if you really think it needs to be noted explicitly that this only includes UEFA teams because only UEFA teams can qualify, go ahead and add it. That's a content issue, not a deletion issue.
Smartyllama (
talk) 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
OK. But I won't add it until the deletion discussion is over. Hopefully it will be deleted.
Ilovereo222 (
talk) 18:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Govvy (
talk) 18:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment To all delete voters (except Ilovereo, who addressed this already) why not merge, given a
alternative to deletion has been proposed?
Smartyllama (
talk) 18:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Govvy: It's literally a statistics page. it's literally in the name of the page. If you don't think it should exist, put it up for AfD too. But as long as a statistics page exists, it should include, well, statistics. And there should be no problem with merging other statistics pages to that one.
Smartyllama (
talk) 19:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
umm,
Smartyllama NOSTATS says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. There isn't one independent source!!
Govvy (
talk) 19:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Govvy You could easily source the table.
[1] - look, none of these countries qualified for Euro 1960.
[2] - none of them qualified for Euro 1964. And so on. And I could find multiple sources establishing each of those claims if I really wanted to. But I don't have time for this. Now, these sources are clearly
WP:ROUTINE, which is why a merge rather than a keep is appropriate. 20:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Hence my vote to merge rather than keep. My comment was merely addressing Govvy's comnment on lack of reliable sources. I thought that was abundantly clear from my previous comment, my apologies if it wasn't.
Smartyllama (
talk) 14:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Ridiculous cross-section of items for a list. Also against a merge.
Sergecross73msg me 22:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment It's worth noting that
All-time Olympic Games medal table includes a list of countries which have never won a medal, and there are similar examples on other pages, so a merge would not be without precedent.
Smartyllama (
talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Meh,
WP:OSE isn't a valid argument at AfD but I didn't read it as the argument: consistency is important and welcome, which is why we have
WP:SSEFAR.
SportingFlyertalk 10:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not a useful list.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 08:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge to
National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship. I have absolutely no idea how this is fails
WP:NOTSTATS, as it's a valid list per
WP:NLIST, presented in an easy-to-understand chart form, and constantly referenced in articles about European qualifying (search "country name" "never qualified" european championships, it's a defining trait of these teams). It does need to be referenced, though. That being said I see a lot of delete votes that seem to me to be nothing more than
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
SportingFlyertalk 02:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
It isn't a valid list, because it would require a few reports from independent sources. From what I see there are no such sources. Like you said, it must be referenced. Furthermore, just because a lot of delete votes seem to you as
WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean that that's what the vote is. Please back up such claims with examples of delete votes that you think are claiming
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Ilovereo222 (
talk) 12:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
The
WP:NOTSTATS (this is a short exhaustive list, not indiscriminate statistics), the "delete per noms",
WP:NOTUSEFUL, and the "ridiculous cross-section of items for a list" votes. And independent sources do exist, you can either source every country individually, each qualifying round individually, or something comprehensive like this (which needs an update): independent sources such as
[3] or even primary sources such as
[4] for each round.
WP:NEXIST applies.
SportingFlyertalk 12:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:NLIST, Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. is absolutely satisfied here. The question really is, what's the best way to source the data?
SportingFlyertalk 12:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
The problem is, with the sourcing, as of right now, the only possible way to source this information would be to include sources that contain all of the countries that participated in each European Championship. However, no one will look at all of the sources just to see if "country x" has or has not participated in a European Championship. Whether a country hasn't participated in a European Championship is of no interest to most readers who just want information about the European Championship anyways.
Ilovereo222 (
talk) 13:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
So
WP:ITSUSELESS and
WP:NOTINTERESTING. Neihter of which are valid arguments. And we've already explained sources exist. What part of that don't you get?
Smartyllama (
talk) 14:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Then source them if you think sources exist. I'd much rather see the sources than see the fact that "sources exist."
Ilovereo222 (
talk) 16:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Did you look at either of the ones above, which list all teams which attempted to qualify through 2008, or all teams which attempted to qualify by tournament year?
SportingFlyertalk 21:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, I did. But if you think that is a proper source, then source it on the page. That's not a deletion issue.
Ilovereo222 (
talk) 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I am also against any merge.
Govvy (
talk) 08:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - non-notable and not needed.
GiantSnowman 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - not really notable (teams are notable for what they do accomplish, not what they do not) although unlike other delete !votes I would not be against a merge to an appropriate article.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 01:22, 17 October 2018 (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.