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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara national football team[edit]

Western Sahara national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Lacking notability, fails WP:V, no references. Hammersfan (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Hammersfan (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and it's obvious that they only play the odd friendly every now and again. Spiderone 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Non fifa board national teams are notable enough. --SM (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This isn't the case though. We have many of these "national teams" that aren't allowed articles. What makes this team notable? Spiderone 10:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - They are only provisional members of the NF Board and, according to the article, haven't done anything since 1994. Spiderone 12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep non-FIFA national associations can be notable, article needs expanding not deleting Eldumpo (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, they can be notable. So would you like to prove why this particular one is please...? GiantSnowman 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of a rash of unofficial 'national' teams, nothing to say this particular one is of note. GiantSnowman 15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - NF team are very notable indeed. As it happens, they were meant to play in the 2006 Viva World Cup organised by the NF board, see this article in the Times. However, the tournament was downgraded because of the ELF cup and Western Sahara in the end were not included in the rosta. However, this article certainly should remain.--Tris2000 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - supposed to play in a competition is not the same as actually playing in one; and surely the fact that they didn't just highlights their lack of notability! GiantSnowman 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That article actually says that they were rumoured to play in it, which is even less convincing an arugument than if the were supposed to. WFCforLife (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I searched google and found this. It proves the existence of the team. Based on the fact that it represents a partially recognized country, I am in favor keeping this article.--TM 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - no-one doubts its existence, we are questioning its notability (or lack of it!) GiantSnowman 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep National football team = very notable. Altho, it should include a source, because I'm not sure about the name of the team... After all, "Western Sahara" is politically neutral, but it doesn't correspond to any political entity. SADR is the name of the state, so shoudn't the name be Sahrawi national football team? Rennell435 (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - but this isn't a "national" team in the true sense, the title of the article is misleading. It is an unofficial team claiming to represent a territoty. GiantSnowman 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I'm not quite sure what you mean... The team is affiliated with SADR, which is recognised as a state by 46 other states (including mine). It's not a dependency (if that's what you mean by "territory") of any other state. Regardless of international recognition of its government, the team represents the Sahrawi nation--a body of people (sovereign or not)--which is what the NF-Board does. So if that's your issue with the article, it could be applied to any and all of the NF teams...unless I've misinterpreted what your trying to get across. Rennell435 (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is not a question of whether it exists or not, or whether it was supposed to have played in a tournament or not, it is a question about notability. As this team has only played a handful of matches, and hasn't played since 1994, it isn't really notable. Whereas some of the non-FIFA teams such as Zanzibar national football team, who were formerly members of CAF, are notable, doesn't mean they all are. aLSO, Western Sahara are only provisional members of the NF Board according to the article. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should the Catalonia football team be deleted, according to these standards? They played at irregular intervals for many years. The argument does not make much sense. Ladril (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Care to find any sources equivalent to the ones in the Catalonia article? WFCforLife (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Aren't The Times Online, the NF-Board website, the RSSSF (see www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/fas-urls.html) and the CENF (see cenf.110mb.com/NFBNewMembers.html) "equivalent" sources? My view on the matter is that any team which forms part of FIFA, a continental confederation, the NF-Board, plays in the Island Games or has played any FIFA member is by definition a notable team. But I also see much of the information on this page is unsourced. The best solution would be to move its verifiable information to a new page for the Sahrawi Football Federation, while leaving this page as a stub to be expanded with verifiable information later. Wiping out every mention of Sahrawi football from the encyclopedia, as proposed, seems to me like poor form and not contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia in any way. Ladril (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Times article is a load of tat. The other three may (or may not) constitute reliable, noteworthy sources. I don't know and I haven't checked them out, because they're not in the article. This nomination is a week old, and still no attempt has been made in the article to assert its notability. The fact that people are defending the article as it stands, whilst refusing to add these "noteworthy sources that exist" is if anything harming its chances. If the article can be made more encyclopaedic, and these "equivalent sources" are found and used in the article, your argument would be far more convincing. WFCforLife (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completely agree with WFC. If this team is notable then surely sources can be incorporated. There is nothing stopping this article going up for AfD again in the future as not everyone will know this debate even took place. Spiderone 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lack of sources can be solved pretty easily. I'll add one to the article. Ladril (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Okay, here are my remaining gripes.
  • 1) The source is in French. This isn't a problem but given that the actual name of the country is in French, and that this is supposedly what makes the whole article notable (...), a translation needs to be given.
  • 2) The article is being defended on the basis that plenty of sources can easily be found, yet there is only one, fleeting, arguably trivial mention of Western Sahara in one list on one source. That's hardly substantial coverage.
  • 3) Is there a source, anywhere, in any language, referencing in any detail whatsoever a match they've played? Even if they haven't played in the internet era it should surely be possible to reference the fact that they have actually played matches at some point in their history. It would particularly help if you can reference opposition who actually have a wikipedia article themselves, as it would strengthen your case. WFCforLife (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because they have never competed at the highest level possible, which in this case would be the FIFI wild cup, the ELF cup, or the VIVA world cup. WFCforLife (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fairly subjective arguments about 'notability' have been proposed. Deletion of this can create a precedent that could lead to edit/deletion wars in other cases where some users can find issue, i. e. the Nauru national team only has one game in its history, and the Vatican City team has only played a few friendlies. Should they be deleted because of this? Ladril(talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Call them subjective if you wish. Absolutely no indication of notability whatsoever has been forthcoming for Western Sahara's football team. If this sets a precident which requires other teams to demonstrate notability, then those articles which do remain will be better for it, while those that don't may be able to demonstrate notability in the future. WFCforLife (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the interest of combating systemic bias toward the developed world. matt91486 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are articles about the football teams of some non-FIFA countries and disputed territories that most certainly would survive AfD, from both developed and developing areas. The difference is most of these have played in one of these tournaments, or else demonstrated another measure of notability. This team has made no such demonstration.

• Suggestion Why don't we make this page a redirect to Western Sahara, and add something about the existence of the football team there? That way we would not be introducing systemic bias, but simply getting rid of a non-notable article. When there's something notable to write, and something reliable to back it up with, we could always restore the article. WFCforLife (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing GNG. – PeeJay 13:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't really care to vote on this, but as it doesn't look like the article will get deleted, I thought I'd mention that the title of this article is violating NPOV policy. Western Sahara is a territory in dispute, sovereignty over which has not been resolved between Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. If the team flies the flag of S.A.D.R. and it is indeed a Sahrawi team, then the title of the article needs to be moved to Sahrawi national football team. If the name of the team is as the title says it is, then can someone please give me verification on that? Otherwise, if the page doesn't get deleted, and nobody has any objections here, I'll make the title change automatically after this discussion is archived. Thanks. Feel free to comment. Night w (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would challenge your reading of the debate, as this isn't a democracy. A strong case has been made that the article is currently neither notable nor verifiable, with the counter arguments being that other stuff exists, or that "it just is notable". Anyway, I agree that if it survives that would be an appropriate move. WFCforLife (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks WCFforLife. I already stated that I'm not casting a vote here and reading the debate and adding an impartial comment (I certainly mentioned nothing about subject notability) have nothing to do with the institutions of democracy.
• Suggestion - What if the page was moved to Sports in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic? The subject is hence broadened and not restricted to a minor and (apparently fairly low-key) particular. Editors can expand on sport in the country in general, and information on this particular team can be added amongst it. Any thoughts? I have a few sources pertaining to AFL (rugby) to go in there. Night w (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would have no problem with that. WFCforLife (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As said before, I would prefer it if a new page was created for the Sahrawi Football Federation, with the links available on this page included. We do have sources on the existence of the federation, but few to none on the team itself. If that is done I have no problem with people deleting this page. I would create the page myself, but I have no prior experience creating pages (hope somebody can help). I will definitely not support deletion of all info on Sahrawi foorball for POV reasons. Ladril (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Update New page created for the Sahrawi Football Federation, whose existence is supported by sources. Hope this satisfies all sides of the argument. Ladril (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a sensible solution. Spiderone 18:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to merge the team information into that article and then get rid of this one? Night w (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete It appears due to conflict in this regional area of Africa and disputes within the political realms that Western Sahara national football team doesn't currently operate and hasn't operated since 1994. Although it tried to operate in 2003. Very few sources allow the article to coincide with current Wikipedia policies and due to Nouvelle Fédération-Board expelling the national team from competition it appears to not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia as having failed to ever enter into an competition. Govvy (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (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.