Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 SAFF Championship Group A

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 all. The main argument of those requesting that these articles be retained is that their notability has been established according to WP:FOOTYN. The problem with this argument is that there is nothing on that essay that mentions the notability of specific matches. Therefore, all of those arguments are invalid. - We do have a policy on this, WP:SPORTSEVENT, which is in line with what those requesting these articles be deleted have stated. Specifically these parts of the policy relate to the discussion here:

"Some games or series are inherently notable, including ..."

1. "The final series ... determining the champion of a top league..."
2. "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game..."

As argued by those on the deletion side, these group matches do not qualify for criterion 1, as they are not final tournaments but are instead sub-tournaments to the final. They also do not qualify under criterion 2, as no evidence has been presented in this discussion to that nature. Therefore, as there have been no policy or consensus backed arguments made in this discussion for the retention of these articles, the articles in question are found to lack the necessary notability for retention (as stand-alone articles) in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 SAFF Championship Group A (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)

PROD contested cause "Just because SAFF isn't a major tournament doesn't mean extra articles are unneeded. Passes WP:NOTSTATSBOOK & WP:NFOOTBALL". I disagree that it passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Pages like this are usually reserved for th World Cup or the top continental competition like the AFC Asian Cup or UEFA European Championship. See previous discussion for extra views on this. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages and the past revisions of the tournament because of the reason above:

• 2015 SAFF Championship Group B
• 2015 SAFF Championship knockout stage
• 2013 SAFF Championship knockout stage
• 2013 SAFF Championship Group B
• 2013 SAFF Championship Group A
• 2011 SAFF Championship Group A
• 2011 SAFF Championship Group B
• 2011 SAFF Championship knockout stage
  • Keep. It's a standard practice to have such sub-articles for top tournaments. 46.200.26.239 (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The consensus of the previous discussion mentioned was to delete because of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, not because of WP:NFOOTBALL. Even though the SAFF is a regional, not continental tournament it is still covered by a variety of websites from a variety of countries, making it seem fairly notable. The articles pertaining to the 2015 edition clearly pass WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I'll be adding more text and sources to the other editions to ensure that they meet that qualifying too. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most ironic part of this AFD discussion too is that the argument that football tournaments don't need sub-articles was the exact same argument ArsenalFan700 and others were arguing against here, but all of a suden it seems they have had a sudden change of policy. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that pages for the final and maybe even the squads are acceptable at the most for tournaments like this. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No where in WP:FOOTYN does it say sub-articles are only reserved for the major tournaments. Just because it isn't common doesn't mean its against Wikipedia's guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a major FIFA-recognised tournament in the region (largest in South Asia), and therefore shouldn't fall prey to misinterpretations of the Wikipedia guidelines. It is every much deserving of equivalent sub articles as other similar regional tournaments. Ayoopdog (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just as there is precedent to keep sub-articles for the final matches of a sub-confederation/regional Tier 1 tournament, there is precedent that it, any qualification, and lists of squads be the only sub-articles of the tournament. Please see the articles for the editions of the SAFF Championship prior to 2011 as well as articles for the Caribbean Cup. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but prior to the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup we didn't have group stage sup pages for that tournament then either, and neither did we for the copa america before the 2011 Copa América edition. Simply because we didn't have it in the past is not an excuse for saying we can't have it in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - simply not required, this is not a major tournament and no argument has been presented to explain why we need so many sub-pages. Content can and should be adequately covered by the main article. GiantSnowman 18:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - not needed for a "small" tournament. Kante4 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4 the projected attendance of 31,716 for the semi-final and 40,500 for the final are far higher than the average attendance for 12,668 per match in the 2011 AFC Asian Cup, a "big" tournament. There are sources that covered this tournament from the Maldives, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, so it obviously has significant coverage. Simply because you think that the tournament is small doesn't mean it cannot have sub-articles, per WP:NCAYO what we think how big or small the tournament is doesn't really matter. Cheers. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a major tournament which should have subarticles. Kante4 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No where in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability does it say sub articles are only limited to continental or "major" tournament either. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does WP:FOOTYN state that tournament subarticles are ever warranted. Previous consensus is that group articles and knockout-phase articles are not notable enough for tournaments below the confederation level, but that they can be notable at the confederation level and that they are notable for the World Cups. If you wish to change that, AfD is not the proper venue. That would be WT:FOOTY and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick I'm not saying that a separate group stage article has to be created for every tournament, just for the past three editions of the SAFF there has been a greater wealth of information regarding the tournament details and group stage. I also find it ironic that this AFD discussion passed overwhelmingly as a keep vote when these very same editors are calling for the group stage articles to be deleted, even though the latter articles are far more better researched and referenced than the article regarding the final. If this argument was brought to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability most editors would probably say delete without even looking at the articles because they probably have never heard of the SAFF Championship and only follow major football tournaments (Also because there are more Deletionists than Inclusionists on Wikipedia). Inter&anthro (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article validates Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability and should not be deleted. Ashish Lohorung (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - This tournament is not big enough to have group stage articles and article for knockout stage. Main article and an article for finals is enough. Currently the articles are just lists of the matches (with starting XI) which does not need a subarticle, the matches are listed in main article and starting XI is not notable here. Qed237 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: based on your comment I doubt that you even looked at the articles. Exactly what makes the Final more notable than the subarticles? Especially in the case of the 2015 edition the subarticles are far better researched and sourced than the final article. Not only that but these articles contain some of the most notable and significant matches in these countries' football histories: Afghanistan's win over Nepal in 2013 was only the countries second ever win over Nepal and helped them onto the final were they won their first ever trophy. Nepal's win over India earlier in the tournament was the first time Nepal had beaten India in over two decades. In this year's edition match up featured Nepal scoring their second international goal in over two years. I could go on, but as it's very unlikely that nay of these countries will make it to the FIFA World Cup or AFC Asian Cup these matches are some of the most notable in their respective histories. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These articles also clearly pass WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as you claim; in most articles I added a well researched and sourced match report. The line ups and match reports add something that the subarticles can provide a level of detail that the main article is unable to. I am aware that not all of the articles have coresponding match reports but I am in the process of adding them. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit, I did not look at all article but took random samples 2011 SAFF Championship Group A and 2011 SAFF Championship knockout stage which has hardly no prose at all except two rows in the lead. But the fact still is that I dont think those articles are notable. A final in general gets more media coverage in news around the world "team X won tournament Y after beating team Z in the final" and I believe they are more notable then a single group stage article. Qed237 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: What stops you from including the notable information in the main article? Qed237 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is far simpler to include the information in subarticles rather than main ones. Why don't we include all the lineups and match details for the FIFA World Cups in the main articles rather than dividing them up into subarticles. I admit that the 2011 edition articles may fail WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as sources for that edition are for some reason harder to find. An yes will the final in the 2015 edition did attract thousands of supporters and media coverage, an almost similar amount came out to cover and support the hosts in the host'ssemi-final win. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Ashish Lohorung. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 02:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SWASTIK 25 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

• Delete All The tournament itself lacks notability, and these sub-articles less so inexponentially. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go}  15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go}  15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go}  15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go}  15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go}  16:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Biggest Football tournament of the South Asia which also passes notability criteria. After seeing size of each sub-article it is not good thing to merge them to main article. It will become very long article. So I think idea of sub-articles is nice here.--Human3015^{Let It Go}  16:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note - User Inter&anthro has canvassed other editors specifically to "Please help defend SAFF articles for deletion." [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] - Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was trying just to alert other editors to the discussion but looking back I definitely let too much of my opinion and bias get in the way. Not to excuse my behavior but I did end most notices with "express your opinion, not mine" and that only about half of the keep votes came from editors I contacted. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the Cyphoidbomb's recommendation I have stuck out my messages to the editor's talk pages so they know the message was a violation of Wikipedia's policy. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that Inter&anthro has remedied the issue satisfactorily. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All of the article should be contained in the rules of WikiProject Football/Notability guideline. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 05:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

• Comment: Just a general comment. No offense to some of the users who have voted on here and I am not trying to cry out something like "My opinion is right and they are wrong!" but looking through these votes, the Keeps are coming from users who, I am sorry, will keep a bias towards this article as it revolves around South Asian football and editors who edit mainly on just South Asian sports and topics and not on the football on a worldwide scale and who probably don't know about the consensus which has already been established when it comes to tournaments below the World Cup and the top-tier international continental tournaments. This is just a general comment I thought I express and sorry if I offend anyone by it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsenalFan700: exactly how does a deletion discussion that is closed because of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK form a consensus on what football articles are and aren't allowed on Wikipedia? The first edit made to this discussion was by an IP address an if you look at their edits here and there isn't much in terms of South Asian football, look at the contribution list of another editor who commented here and once again there is very little in the way of South Asian football. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - The main aricle is enough; the level of detail on the subpages is not required for a tournament of this size. JMHamo (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - None of the articles contain any real information (bar brief match summaries that stray dangerously close if not over the line of PoV) that is not contained either in the main article or 2015_SAFF_Championship_squads. As a regional competition within a confederation involving only a small number of teams these matches are not inherently notable on their own and there is no indication of significant, reliable coverage of any individual match beyond routine match reporting and stat sites to indicate any wider GNG in any area. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The line-ups and match summary are something definitely not found in the main article, and I don't see the WP:NOPOV violation since all the match reports are sourced. The SAFF is also the most prominent football tournament in the reigon, and has also significantly grown in the past couple editions, definitely not WP:MILL. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Match reporting is inherently subjective, there is a clear NPOV issue when the article is sourced to only one report, particularly given the tone of the articles. Match reporting, is by definition WP:MILL, search low enough and you will find match reports on even the most minor tournaments. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Not enough notability for stand-alone articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 29 January 2016 (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.