Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendly association football tournaments in 2015

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. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly association football tournaments in 2015[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable friendly games that do not need their own article. JMHamo (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – As a sort of extension on WP:NENAN and WP:NENAW, this would fall under as-yet-unwritten essay (which I may start to write quite soon) NENAL (Not Everything Needs A List). These "articles" are basically just unnecessary rehashes of {{Friendly tournaments 2013}}, and {{Friendly tournaments 2014}}; {{Friendly tournaments 2015}} has not yet been created. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that NENAL effectively exists in WP:LISTN and WP:LSC/WP:CSC. I don't find a seemingly indiscriminate list of friendly footy tournaments to be particularly notable. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2015; keep the others. No point in having 2015, since it's just getting going. The others, however, are fine. They represent a good example of the differences between lists and navboxes: navboxes should just provide the links and any necessary navigational information, while lists can (and in this case, do) provide additional information in a useful and structured format. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per GiantSnowman and Jkudlick. I might also add that NOTDIRECTORY and NOTSTATSBOOK may play a role here, too, in the absence of any meaningful text to provide context to these lists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion of these articles would effectively mean that the yearly templates at the bottom of each article would be relied upon in order to maintain a 'list' of these tournaments. While I don't have a problem with this so much, I'm concerned that the templates could end up in a bit of a bad state. Already, in fact, if I want to see all the tournaments in the 'Friendly tournaments 2013' template, then I can only just manage to get them to fit into my computer screen. I don't think that this is the best way to use a template.

We could just say that we should cut the number of tournaments displayed in the template, and that would solve the problem. However, in these particular circumstances, we cannot prioritise any tournament over another due to the fact that they all carry the same competitive weight. This is a unique aspect of dealing with friendly tournaments. All of the matches played in the tournaments noted in these articles and templates are of the same value, as they are friendlies. However, the fact that they are tournaments gives them some form of notability. The problem that this creates is that it is impossible to remove (or add) any tournament, without doing the same for all the others.

This leads me to ask about what tournaments the templates are for (assuming, still, that the templates are our way of keeping track of these tournaments after the articles are deleted).

Are they for all the tournaments? This would make sense, seeing as all the tournaments mean the same, as I have just outlined.

Are they for tournaments which have separate articles on Wikipedia for each year they take place?

Is a tournament noteworthy enough to be included in the template if it just has one Wikipedia article that covers all the years that it has been running, and only has redirects to that article for the individual years?

At the moment, we've got a mixture of all of these kinds of things going on. This means that some templates have red links. Some templates have redirects. Some templates include tournaments not listed on the articles that are proposed to be deleted here, while at the same time omitting tournaments that are listed in the articles.

It is just all very confused. It doesn't help, of course, that the templates can get rather quite large.

I just think that what we need is clearer criteria for inclusion, and I think that it's important that this issue is raised before the deletion of the articles.

Maybe this is something that could be discussed in a WikiProject environment, if it hasn't been done so already. In any case, I think that it would make sense to do a number of things:

Firstly, remove the tabular structure of the templates. It does look nice, and it is very clear. However, this will always leave the possibility for the templates to become incredibly large. I think that we could manage without the date and the location, and just have a flag and a link.
Secondly, adopt the following criteria for inclusion:

Only include tournaments which involve three teams or more. This makes them tournaments, rather than just branded exhibition matches.
Only include tournaments which feature teams from at least two different football associations. This makes them international, rather than opening up the templates to swathes of domestic showdowns.

Now, what I'm suggesting might actually increase the number of tournaments featured in these templates. This is only because the current templates are missing out various tournaments, however.

Hopefully what I have suggested includes measures for dealing with any further potential increases in the sizes of the templates.

I'm aware that, if followed, the criteria that I have proposed would leave a number of red links in the templates. However, red links are already visible in some of these templates, and I don't necessarily see them as a bad thing. As I said, I'm not sure how much sense there would be in excluding tournaments with red links, seeing as all the matches in all these tournaments carry the same weight.

This leads me on to question whether there should be similar criteria for the individual tournament articles. If more red links do crop up, then I don't really see why articles should not then be created. It would be weird for some tournaments to continue having their own articles, while other tournaments continue in not having anything. We need a more consistent approach and some guidance as to whether articles should be created or not.

Before I finish, I should just mention that, in relation to the articles being discussed for deletion here, then I don't believe in the argument that it is a good idea to have the articles because they allow for the record of the individual teams involved to be studied. It should be remembered that, in this specific case, the teams listed in these articles have no relation to each other, and so it is not necessary to see them all on the same page. For example, no purpose is served by the Third place column, as all the teams listed in it were from completely different tournaments. Redv Blue 02:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per WP:NOTDIR. A list of inherently non-notable competitions. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – ridiculous articles. No connection whatsoever between the different tournaments. Not grouped together anywhere outside of Wikipedia. A good dose of WP:OR. C 679 14:32, 30 January 2015 (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.