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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup qualification (South America)[edit]

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

Current champions and Most successful team(s) is OR, anything else duplicate of Category:FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL) FootballCleaner (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If you believe the infobox to be OR, then deleting that particular piece of information would not be challenged. The article is also not a duplicate of the category, because it further lists the non-CONMEBOL qualification games and distinguishes between the present round-robin tournament to the prior group-stage tournament. Lastly, the article is currently at an incipient stage, but has potential to be a thorough list. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while an article about the FIFA World Cup qualification in South America would be notable, the article is currently a disambiguation-page with links to several related article, and that dab-page isn't needed. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mentoz86, no need for a dab page of this nature. Giant Snowman 15:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:OR looks like it's pushing a POV agenda and no need to disambiguate per Mentoz86. C 679 23:52, 10 November 2013 (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.