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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been requested to provide a more detailed closing statement. Very well.

There is an overwhelming consensus that the sources presented do not establish that the team meets WP:N. But, more than that, there is not even agreement that the team ever existed, and hence doesn't meet WP:V. Notability is a somewhat subjective concept, and there is room for legitimate debate about what is or isn't notable. Verifiability, however, is something which is held to a much higher standard, and there is strong consensus here that this standard has not been met.

I find the arguments for keeping to be particularly weak. One argument is that, the article exists in 16 other language wikis. WP:OTHERLANGS makes it clear that this is not a legitimate argument. There was also an argument made that the team is inherently notable. WP:NOTINHERITED addresses this one. There was also an argument that, I don't see any sources that say this team never existed. What we need (to meet the fundamental requirement of WP:V) are sources which say it does exist. The lack of sources which say it doesn't exist is not the same thing. And, lastly, the sources presented in the AfD were specifically, and individually, refuted.

Thus, delete is the only possible conclusion to this debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru national soccer team[edit]

Nauru national soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication that this is a formal "National Team" could be found during my WP:BEFORE searching, and no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found that meets WP:GNG. This team, if it is the national team of Nauru, has not played in any international matches - that is, a match against another country's national team - and its only match is against an ad-hoc group of workers from the Soloman Islands who happened to be in Nauru at the time. I have no idea why this article exists as it does not appear to satisfy any notability standards. During the first AfD it appears that many of the Keep !votes were misguided. This time, I hope that people who think this team meets a notability guideline are prepared to immediately prove it. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete During the first AfD there existed a source that the team had played an official friendly against the Solomon Islands; it now appears that it was an unofficial game against some Solomon Island migrant workers on Nauru. Given that the team appears to have never played an official game, there is really nothing to write about here. An alternative would be to create Nauru Amateur Soccer Association (which clearly does exist, and sources are available for that) and merge and/or redirect this article to that one. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - National team, inherently notable. Certainly some discussion of the team whether they have played official internationals or not which would indicate GNG, doubtless with more to be found offline in Nauruan sources. In particular:

1. Watson, Paul. "FIFA's Exiles". The Blizzard Football Quarterly (15) - source noted not the article.
2. RSSSF - briefish discussion of the national team
3. The Complete Guide to National Symbols and Emblems -

confirmation of thecteams existence and noting the nickname of the national team.

1. Nauru government - Announcement of second national team match
2. National team summery - article summarising the history of the team, mentions rumours of other matches against Pacific island teams.

There certainly seems to be some coverage in media sources from multiple countries indicating notability at the very least as a curiosity. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, those sources are the same awful ones I found - none of which actually confirm that the "Nauru national soccer team" actually exists. The closest thing to anything useful simply states that a match involving the "Combined Nauru Team" is due to take place. That's not enough. The others state that they're not sure a National Team for Nauru actually exists, and the most damning of all of them references the errors in the Wikipedia article that is the subject of this deletion discussion. Yes, national soccer teams are inherently notable - if they exist. WP:V doesn't ask editors to give it their best guess. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources suggests that an official Nauru team has played an official full international - even a friendly - against another national team.

• Source 1 actually says that this hasn't happened.
• Source 2 (RSSSF - reliable) even says "It is quite likely that there has been no official Nauru national football team."
• Source 3 has their name in a list of teams, but provides no evidence as to the above
• Source 4 merely says that a Nauru "representative team" (i.e. not an official national side) played a game - also referred to in Source 2 which then goes on to say that "It is quite likely that there has been no official Nauru national football team."
• Source 5 actually says that there has been no games played, apart from the Solomon Islands one mentioned above, which of course wasn't official.

To sum up, we don't have any evidence of an actual Nauru national team ever playing an official game against another nation, so we currently have an article about a national team that has effectively never existed. To state the obvious, something that has never existed cannot be notable. This is why I suggested merging to Nauru Amateur Soccer Association which is verifiable. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the premise that it cannot possibly be notable, but it would require exceptional circumstances for it to be notable, which do not apply here. For instance, the Saudi Arabia women's national football team is notable for not existing, and there has been significant coverage in reliable sources of the fact that it does not exist, and the controversy over that fact. That does not seem to be the case here. Smartyllama (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources Fenix down lists, as others have noted, all doubt the team has ever existed, and/or speak of a "Combined Nauru Team", which is not the same thing, with the single exception of the symbols and emblems book, which tellingly gives exactly the same information for football/soccer and Australian rules football. Redirect to Soccer in Nauru, where the situation is summarised, or as Black Kite suggests, create Nauru Amateur Soccer Association and redirect there. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a redirect, there's clearly sufficient reliably sourced material for content somewhere. Fenix down (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the team never existed, how can it be notable in the first place? —JJBers 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only reliable sources available on the subject indicate that it is likely the team never officially existed. Someone knowledgeable in the other languages in which the subject has an article might want to address those as well.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Isn't there a rule somewhere, that if the article exists in 16 other language wikis that we can throw the nominator off the island? As per Fenix's references. The sport may well collapsed in the country, but that doesn't mean it wasn't notable in the past. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, none of those references confirm that there ever was an official national soccer team.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit difficult for something to collapse that never existed in the first place! Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Why would an article about a team that has never existed need to be kept? As stated above, there's already an article about Soccer on Nauru so what possible justification (apart from the red-herring "there are articles in 16 other wikis" argument) can there be for keeping an article about this "team"? Exemplo347 (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347:. I finally had a chance to look into this further. I don't see any sources that say this team never existed - I'm not sure what's the basis of that statement. FIFA's website has a document indicating they played in 1994 against the Solomon Islands here. There's other documents on some of the 15 other wikis. Currently seems there isn't a team, but the statement that there has never been a team doesn't seem to have any sources, while there are some good sources that there was once a team. Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It does not exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems to be based on WP:SYN of the sources. It seems there was once a team there, but they are not a part of any professional or semi-professional governing body and have not played a match in over 20 years. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Football in Nauru Soccer in Nauru. It doesn't exist, and never existed, and therefore shouldn't be kept, but it's entirely plausible that a reader who didn't know that the team never existed would search for it. And there are also the unofficial teams participating in non-notable competitions mentioned at Football in Nauru#National team, which people might want information on. That's not enough for an article except in rare cases where the team has received significant coverage for not existing (see Saudi Arabia women's national football team or perhaps the college football team at Plainfield Teacher's College), which is not the case here. But it's a plausible enough search term that it should be redirected. Smartyllama (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I agree it's a plausible search term. The argument that "all national football teams are kept" is absurd here. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'mt not sure it's entirely absurd, User:Power~enwik. Off-hand, I can't think of another nation who is part of the United Nations (as opposed to province, enclave, region, territory, etc.) where the men's team article hasn't been kept in such a discussion. Not that is proof it should be kept, but I think it does demonstrate that it's not absurd! Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well @Nfitz: this team doesn't exist, so why should this article be kept? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: You use the present tense though. Is it true if you use the past tense? Nfitz (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Yes. This article is purely a misunderstanding of what counts as a National soccer team, and a thorough search before you !voted would have shown you that. Exemplo347 (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All national football teams are kept. The problem is that this team does not exist, and therefore is not a "national football team". Smartyllama (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the debate though isn't it. My point in my comment above though was clearly not arguing for keep, but simply pointing out that it's not entirely absurd that there should be an article. I'm not sure why User:Exemplo347 is turning that point into a debate about a different issue. And I'm not sure where the unnecessary comment a thorough search before you !voted comes from, give I even provided a new reference from a British publication, and mentioned the other 16 Wikis (where do you think I found the reference). I can easily accept there is currently no team. Is there enough historic media coverage? That requires more work. Accusing someone of not spending enough time seems a bit rich given his close in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Roady where he managed to do it about 2 minutes after editing somewhere very different. I don't think I could read all the diverse comments in that closure thread in 2 minutes, let alone do any background checking! Nfitz (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete till such time as it actually exists. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace when it can be RSd.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (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.