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. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of England national amateur football team hat-tricks[edit]

[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)

This list fails WP:GNG as all of these hat-tricks were scored in amateur/non-professional/B-team matches instead of senior/A-team ones. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is flawed, articles about amateur football can and do meet GNG - as this one does. Giant Snowman 07:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination is flawed in implying that this covers "non-senior" football, the suggestion being that the amateur football covered here is of the low-skilled "Sunday morning in the park" variety. This is not the case - in its heyday the England amateur team was essentially considered parallel to the professional team and routinely beat the professional national teams of other nations, often by large margins. All the games listed here are considered full senior international matches by the other nations involved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination may be flawed, but so are the keep rationales above (WP:ITSNOTABLE). This is a pretty bad failure of WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NLIST, and WP:GNG. Despite the claim that this meets GNG, I've been able to find no significant coverage that discusses the topic of hat tricks scored by players on the England amateur soccer team, let alone even collates them into a table (which still wouldn't be enough). Although granted, this is old stuff, so if someone can find offline sources, I might be willing to reconsider. But as it stands, these entries have been culled from various databases. Going through box scores to see who got a hat trick may get into WP:NOR territory, and it certainly doesn't look good in terms of notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic list. GenuineArt (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*...WP:BELONG. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 35 for failing WP:NLIST to the point that the article resorts to WP:SYNTH from game score records since no source directly discusses the subject in the first place. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The three rationales above, as the IP pointed out, are pretty lacking (as is the nomination itself). Yes, amateur football can be notable, but this lacks relevant sources and actually seems to be pure WP:SYNTH. Another rationale was that it's an "encyclopedic list" without explaining why. There's no shortage of lists that can be created on Wikipedia. Unfortuanately, as a subject that hasn't been covered by reliable sources, this one fails to be encyclopedic. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per GiantSnowman, ChrisTheDude, and GenuineArt. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was incorrectly deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Vivian Woodward, which agreed to open a separate AfD here. I have filed a request at WP:RFU to restore it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For those who say this meets the general notability guideline, with what sources? This? This? Unless you present something better, we have to go with the sourcing the article has, and there can be no doubt that what it has does not meet the GNG. czar 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for the time it was deleted/off view
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have doubts regarding WP:GNG and WP:LISTN because nobody has been able to provide WP:RS discussing this topic at length. What we have here is WP:SYNTH because the article creator has gone through every single amateur game themselves and picked out the hat-tricks and compiled the list themselves, meaning that the article violates Wikipedia policy so should be removed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part merge to England national amateur football team. Firstly how on earth is this information violating WP:SYNTH, it doesn't employ any conclusion. It is simply factual information on who scored hat trick goals. WP:SYNTH is a floored argument for deleting this article. Secondly, the England national amateur football team is a small article, why isn't that improved before this article was created. I really suggest the content be merged over and worked on there to improve the article. There are several books out there with this information in them, history of English football is well covered, I also find arguments against GNG floored. This to me is all about where the information should be correctly located. I don't see a need for this to be in a separate article at this time. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with that as well to be honest. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would still oppose a merge. This is way too specialized of a statistic -- a brief mention of the team's top goal scorers is one thing, but for such a basic article, this would be pretty ridiculous to include. There are tons of other statistics that could be generated/included, but Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. And for the record, I don't think it's SYNTH, so much as outright OR. The fact that Wikipedia editors have to comb through bare match box scores to generate this is pretty telling. It's pretty easy to miss something, which makes verification of this information difficult. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. The content of this article seems largely inappropriate for inclusion on England national amateur football team as a giant table of every hat trick they performed seems out of place. W 42 13:48, 12 October 2022 (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.