Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national teams with no AFC Asian Cup appearances

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. Sandstein 13:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national teams with no AFC Asian Cup appearances[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is no reason as to why the page should exist. It is not even notable in regards of the tournament itself. This page fails WP:NOTABILITY. Furthermore, it is pretty obvious which teams did not qualify by looking at the participating nations chart. In addition, if such an article were to exist, it would also have to include teams that are not even part of AFC such as Germany or Uruguay. Ilovereo222 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it sets a bad precedence to create articles that group together things that HAVE NOT been achieved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article, very unwiki and doesn't serve anything but to annoy. Govvy (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:ITSUSELESS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, neither of which are valid arguments. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely unnecessary article. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needless trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ WP:NOTSTATS Hhkohh (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge table then delete per below and WP:NOTSTATS Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is a merge then delete allowed under CCL? I thought we had to preserve the edit history of the merged content. Smartyllama (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redirect is unnecessary and just histmerge to National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup if that result is redirect or delete Hhkohh (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. I'm assuming you mean if that result is redirect or keep. If it's deleted, we obviously can't merge it there, but could still merge it to the records and statistics article. Though I believe we'd have to do that in the case the other AfD is closed as redirect too, since that's where the content ultimately would be. But I'll let the closing admin sort that out if that's where consensus goes. Smartyllama (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah Hhkohh (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever fate befalls this article, the same should probably also happen to List of national teams with no UEFA European Championship appearances and List of national teams with no FIFA World Cup appearances. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lowercaserho: posted to AfD Hhkohh (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup or AFC Asian Cup records and statistics per WP:ATD. It wouldn't be immediately obvious by looking at the table over there which teams haven't made it, since that would require the reader to have memorized a list of all AFC members. Nonetheless, this doesn't need its own article, it can be covered there just fine. The idea that the table would have to include non-AFC members is ridiculous. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, we wouldn't need to know which teams did not make the AFC Asian Cup. This is because teams that didn't make it don't really have anything to do with the cup (except for the qualification process, which probably isn't notable enough). It's not like we include a list of people who have qualified for the cup but didn't score a goal. I still think we should delete the page, or at least add it to the qualification process page as a list of teams that have not made it out of the qualification process. Also, how would the idea that the table would need to include non-AFC members be ridiculous? The page never specified that the teams had to be part of AFC. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include basketball teams too? Because those have never made the AFC Asian Cup. What about Manchester United? They've never made it either. But it should be obvious to any halfway intelligent reader that basketball teams, or club teams, or non-AFC teams, have not qualified for a soccer tournament for AFC national teams. And if you really think it isn't, go ahead and specify it. That's a content issue, not a deletion issue. And the threshold for inclusion in an article is a lower bar than the threshold for having its own article. WP:ITSUSEFUL can be an argument for including content within an article, since after all the purpose of an encyclopedia is to serve its readers. The subject as a whole needs to pass the threshold for notability, but not every single aspect of an article individually. Hence, merge it to another article where it's relevant rather than make it a standalone topic. And That being said, how is "add[ing] it to the qualification process page" any different from merging? Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying. We could easily copy and paste the content on this page to the qualification process page. But still though, it's not like the information on this page is referenced to any reliable sources to any extent. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically what merging is. Of course, under CCL, we'd need to either do a redirect or a histmerge to ensure everything is properly attributed. And I'm sure we can easily find reliable sources about who appeared when. After all, that's sourced in the individual tournament articles, it would be fairly easy to copy the citation links. Now, such sources probably don't get this article past GNG, which is why we merge rather than keep, but they should at least pass WP:RS and WP:V. Smartyllama (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I have merged the information, the only thing that's needed now are the sources. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that simple. We'd need either a redirect or a histmerge to properly attribute the history per WP:MERGE and the CCL. There may not be consensus for the former at the moment, and the latter requires an admin. On a related note, would you reconsider your "do not merge" comment on the UEFA AfD given they're largely identical (and if anything UEFA receives more coverage)? Smartyllama (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly if we were to merge we would need a redirect to the new page, since this page has been around for a while. Ilovereo222 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am against any merge. Govvy (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous cross-section of items for a list. Also against a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that All-time Olympic Games medal table includes a list of countries which have never won a medal, and there are similar examples on other pages, so a merge would not be without precedent. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s meaningless unless it was kept in there as a result of some consensus from a policy-based discussion. Otherwise, youre just pointing at another mistake to justify this mistake, which isn’t valid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a useful list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or just keep outright) to National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup. Absolutely no reason to delete this information as it's a valid list per WP:LISTN, presented in chart format. Some delete votes appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SportingFlyer talk 03:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's already merged. But I don't think it passes WP:LISTN or WP:STATS. Pretty much you're implying that every list, sourced or not, passes WP:LISTN, when in fact that is not the case. Ilovereo222 (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm implying nothing of the sort. Does this come down to the lack of inline sources? [1] is independent and secondary and confirms the valid list inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer talk 13:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So I somewhat support the merge. However, if the majority of the people here vote that it should be deleted, then that should be the case. Ilovereo222 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVOTE. It's also not obvious from the chart presented during the nomination which teams have never qualified but have attempted to. I've clarified the article so it wouldn't "include teams like Uruguay" and added a source. SportingFlyer talk 00:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and not needed. Giant Snowman 15:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is already covered in another article on AFC Cup Qualification, so I'm fine with a procedural delete. SportingFlyer talk 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really notable (teams are notable for what they do accomplish, not what they do not) although unlike other delete !votes I would not be against a merge to an appropriate article. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2018 (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.