- 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 Procedural keep. I'm not sure we are going to get anything out of this bundled AfD, there seems to be some coverage but I think this is best discussed in separate AfDs. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bosnia and Herzegovina national under-15 football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A few U-15 football teams without claims to notability, and in some cases not maintained at all (e.g. the Slovakia one has a "current squad" from 2010). While some players in some of these countries went on to acquire fame, notability is not inherited.
Also nominated are:
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no evidence that these national teams are notable. Having U21, U20, U19, U18 and U17 is usually sufficient, maybe down to U16 at a stretch. GiantSnowman 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, we normally don't go below Under-17s to 16s. Govvy (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Schoolboy football. Nigej (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - the reporting at this age level is limited and trivial in nature. As can be seen from some of the articles, some of the players did go on to become professional footballers but a very large number did not. Whilst the fact that the pages are out of date is not a valid reason to delete them as such, it is perhaps a symptom of the fact that there just aren't enough suitable sources available to keep these up to date even if one tried to. We would also need more than just squad and fixture lists to show notability and that simply is not available for schoolboy-level football. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
(possibly all) — Returning from a hiatus...I just had to give my vote on this. It is my honest and humble opinion, that even though this nomination may have been well-intentioned, the nom is entirely abusive. Kosovo national under-15 football team for example has 6 well-sourced references cited (even if they may no longer be current; see Wayback machine). It is literally impossible henceforth to fail WP:GNG without an innate bias or well-based reasons to delete as per the rules for deletion for the lack of notability, which I simply do not see here I’m sorry. It seems like they all have been written off already, especially when the availability of additional references could in fact further establish the article(s). The lack of maintenance tags are also concerning giving my reasoning more validity. Doesn’t seem like these pages have had its fair shot. It is easy to start these discussions years down the line when the creators of these articles aren’t as active as they once were to strengthen them. Perhaps it is all merely too many articles for WikiProject Football to keep up with? Is this the actual concern here; the disinterest maybe among its members? This isn’t meant to be accusatory but I do beg these questions.
- The reasons that I am reading in opposition for their existences are extraordinarily opinionated such as “maybe down to U16 at a stretch” (opinion #1 @GiantSnowman), “we normally don't go below Under-17s to 16s” (opinion #2 @Govvy), “some of the players did go on to become professional footballers but a very large number did not” (irrelevant as per deletion proposal @Spiderone; this had been true for players or clubs not passing for notability based on youth-status or semi-professionalism but much less for internationally-acclaimed organizations, tournaments, participants et al; they have always been placed on a higher scale. The same reasons why we have youth teams as even being notable in the first place!). Even if this did matter, one has to wonder if there is that big of a margin for would-be professionals post-U-16 who are merely just a year older and if it is by a wide margin, would it just be because of overall numbers? After all, it would make sense for the U-16 team to have had produced more professionals since inception considering they have participated in more tournaments historically. Though while both were active, what are the numbers for those years? This statistic might tell a different tale. The fact that “some may end up playing professionally” decimate the very sense being used here to oppose notability.
- “There just aren't enough suitable sources available to keep these up to date even if one tried to”. @Spiderone. So this warrants a deletion or simply begs a defunct selection in the article? Should we prefer to just ignore their existences and accolades for their respective time periods? Is Wikipedia not a encyclopedia for both the old and the new; the pastimes and the trending?
- I sincerely urge you all to reconsider your position as most of these tournaments are FIFA-backed and thus in itself NOTABLE, along with its respective international participants, especially if the citations warrant it. Loaded opinions aside, going through with such deletions are a major disservice to the entire community and just begets mass deletions across the board with little regard to the principles laid out before us.
- My question for you all is simply this, “if I could add 40 independent citations to each article, would it change your minds?” —If the answer is still no, is there not a bias? How about a domestic tournament that has only had a single round-robin competition that only garnered 3 citations, would your answer be to keep? —If your answer is yes, is there not a bias? Would there have even been a nomination? This is my point precisely. Let us get this right. Thank you all for your time concerning this matter. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim "Kosovo national under-15 football team for example has 6 well-sourced references cited (even if they may no longer be current; see Wayback machine). It is literally impossible henceforth to fail WP:GNG without an innate bias or well-based reasons to delete as per the rules for deletion for the lack of notability, which I simply do not see here I’m sorry.". The problem is that when we analyse these six sources, we get the following:
- Source 1 is a database of FIFA country codes[1], so not a significant source and not a source about the Kosovo U15 team
- Source 2 is from FIFA.com, so not an independent source, and is about Kosovo football in general, not specifically about the U15 team
- Source 3 to 6 are from the Kosovo Football Federation, so even less independent.
- Contrary to what you claim, these 6 sources are nowhere near what is required by the GNG and don't establish any notability at all. Fram (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with Fram's analysis of the sources provided. Of course, if independent sources can be presented that specifically focus on the under-15 teams for any of these nations that clearly demonstrate significance, then I will change my stance. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Kosovo U15) — Comparing Kosovo U15 with other teams like Bosnia and Herzegovina U15, Slovakia U15 and Vanuatu U15, which have not been active for years with Kosovo U15 that is an active team which every year (from 2018) plays international friendly or competitive matches (tournament or match organized by UEFA) is unacceptable, references which are used to Kosovo U15, most are about matches and tournaments in which it has participated and more references are expected to be added soon after updating the Football Federation of Kosovo's website. While Italy, Portugal and Spain are entitled to an article about national U15 teams, why Kosovo is not has this right, a team which is among the most active teams in this age group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krelana (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Italy team is definitely not notable either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How does that matter though Lugnuts? What exactly is the difference between U15 and U16 and U17? Your reasoning isn’t at all valid for determining WP:GNG. They are playing in an international competition in their respective FIFA-backed regions (in this case UEFA). Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Savvyjack23 - please can you provide WP:THREE good sources for one of the four teams that is listed in this discussion to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV? Any of the 4 teams will do. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone - With great pleasure. Here’s coverage for Bosnia and Herzegovina which headlines this group. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Home sources
Reprezentacija (articles from 2017 to as recent as July, 2020, even within a pandemic)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pages to 35+ more articles...
Sportsport (2020 +more)
[2]
Bhfanaticos (2018)
[3]
Dnevno (2017)
[4]
Fksarajevo (2016)
[5]
Fokus (2015)
[6]
Jelah (2012)
[7]
I think you get the idea; well established in own country.
- Elsewhere
1 (UEFA editorial, English, pg 45, April 2016 edition)
2 (U.S., English, 2018)
3 (U.S., English, 2018)
4 (Zambia, English, 2020)
5 (Zambia, English, 2020)
6 (Sarajevo Times, for English-expats in Bosnia & Herzegovina, 2020)
7 (Lithuanian, 2018)
Spiderone; Here's coverage for Kosovo U15. In these two links that I will publish, there are two, let's say folders from the two main sources which report on the activity of Kosovo U15, in the Football Federation of Kosovo's link you can find all the activity of the team from summer 2016, which includes all gatherings (call-ups), training camps and matches, while at the Telegrafi's link are the competitive activity of the team. These links are safe as they follow the activity of the team step by step. Krelana (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that there is enough here to suggest that there might be some significant coverage. Perhaps these teams would be best discussed in separate AfDs. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 20 February 2021 (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.