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.
Being unofficial is not a deletion rationale. Also, could someone confirm this page's history? It was kept in 2011 for passing GNG, but the history for the page only goes back to 2018. SportingFlyerT·C 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being unofficial it probably doesn't qualifiy for a Wikipedia article. Also, I can see that the article has been already reduced significantly removing excessive details, also due apparently to copyright reasons; but also because it was clearly way to detailed for a wikipedia article. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not provided a valid deletion rationale. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – World Football Elo Ratings uses an alternative methodology to the contested IFFHS similar to that used in chess. I consider it completely valid, in addition to having a very broad database of national team matches. Svartner (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner @Geschichte The valid deletion rationale is the following: the subject, in my opinion, does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. This because the ratings are an unofficial implementation of the Elo formula, similar to other unofficial existing rankings. World Football Elo Ratings uses an alternative methodology to the contested IFFHS similar to that used in chess: not exactly. There is no IFFHS rating for national teams; if you mean the FIFA World Rankings the method is slightly different, instead it is practically identical (except for some football-specific adaptations, such as goal difference and home team advantage) to the Elo system used in chess. I consider it completely valid is a personal opinion, which is not relevant for WP:NPOV. I hope to have been clear about my arguments. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's comment and evidence above. The age of sources isn't a valid reason to dismiss them out of hand. Anwegmann (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid deletion rationale given and no change in prior consensus. Specifically, I would say that this source and to an extent this source provide WP:GNG coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (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.