Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national teams with no UEFA European Championship appearances

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]

List of national teams with no UEFA European Championship appearances

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

fail WP:NOTSTATS, maybe merge to other articles if necessary Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship or List of UEFA European Championship records (depending on the AfD result of the former) as it can be adequately covered in a section on that article. Smartyllama (talk) 16:09, 12 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]

Read the title. Ilovereo222 (talk) 13:30, 15 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]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 12 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]

Comment@Smartyllama: Have you read WP:NOTSTATS? Govvy (talk) 19:13, 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)

- - - - @Smartyllama: This is not called passing WP:GNG Hhkohh (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        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. Sergecross73 msg 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]

But that’s meaningless unless it was kept in there as a result of some consensus from a policy-based discussion. Otherwise, youre just pointing at another mistake to justify this mistake, which isn’t valid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 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. SportingFlyer talk 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. SportingFlyer talk 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. SportingFlyer talk 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? SportingFlyer talk 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? SportingFlyer talk 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. Giant Snowman 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship, purely as an editorial decision; it's better for readers to see teams with 1 appearance and teams with 0 appearances on the same page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 16 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.