Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national teams with no FIFA World 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. Nothing provided by any of the keep votes to suggest that the subject of never having qualified for a world cup has gained sufficient significant coverage as a topic in itself to satisfy WP:LISTN. Note this is different than coverage of any given country not qualifying, where there may be coverage but it is synthesis to aggregate this and assume that an overall list is notable Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national teams with no FIFA World 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)

fail WP:NOTSTATS maybe merge if necessary Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I would agree that the AFC and UEFA pages with no team appearances are useless, the FIFA World Cup is much more notable, enough so that subpages like these can be included. Also, there are useful stats on the page. Ilovereo222 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup if feasible, otherwise keep. This may be more difficult to merge than the other two due to its larger size. Regardless, the information should be covered somewhere, whether in a standalone article or as a section in another. Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:GNG, Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of unless statistics. Govvy (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain where the content fork is happening. This may not be notable statistics, but if merged, it can be included in a larger article. Ilovereo222 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovereo222: Content fork, or a reverse fork of National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, it's just pointless statistics. As User:Hhkohh pointed out, WP:NOTSTATS, and this looks a clear case of indiscriminate collection of information to me. Govvy (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not what a content fork is, unless you expect the average reader to have committed every FIFA member to memory. Also, WP:ITSUSELESS is not a reason to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSELESS Is a good enough reason to me to delete, but I do notice you pretty much say keep on most things regardless of wiki policies. So don't mind me if I don't want to listen to you anymore cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I find this page useful. But just as WP:ITSUSELESS is not a valid argument for deletion, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep. So how "useful" this page is or is not is rather moot. Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be an indiscriminate list for even a second, as there are at most 200 items that could possibly be in the list. SportingFlyer talk 03:14, 15 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]

Keep This is one of those cases where we have to be careful to be overruled by rules. Yes, there's policy on stats, but there's policy on page size too. There's policy on forks, but there's policy on over-loading articles with too much information; indeed there is guidance to advise editors to divide articles if things look too unwieldy. In this specific case, I believe that the benefit of the doubt should be given to keeping the article. It provides information in an easy to understand way, leaves the "parent" article to do what it sets out to do with its title, and steers away from trivia by compiling existing statistics rather than creating its own. doktorb _words^deeds 17:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there are some problems with keeping it. There are no sources to the statistics, so who even knows if the statistics actually exist or if someone was making it up. Also, the parent article isn't long compared to most other articles, and this is a very short article, so keeping this article makes no sense. I still stand by my nomination. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Badgering every single keep !vote isn't going to get you anywhere. Smartyllama (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
Struck the above comment because I thought you were someone else. In fairness, my confusion was understandable. You !voted keep. Now you're saying there are problems with keeping. Which is it? You also say you "stand by [your] nomination" but you're not the nominator. And neither this article nor the parent article are particularly short. Perhaps you commented on the wrong AfD? Smartyllama (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the case. My bad. Ilovereo222 (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per SmartyLlama. It's a valid list topic, formatted as a chart, and isn't unexplained listings of statistics. SportingFlyer talk 03:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to state I am against any merge. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? There's no reason not to have this information per WP:ATD, it's a valid list per WP:NLIST and something you might find in a football encyclopedia. SportingFlyer talk 09:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean on what grounds? Because it's a collection of stats without any verification! How you can merge a list which fails basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a collection of statistics, at best it's a single statistic presented in list format. There's also [1] There's also articles such as these which discuss individual nations that have never made it [2] and statistics on qualifying [3] and we have a map on the World Cup page with the best ever finish for each country - it makes sense to have a list of countries who have a value of zero on that list. SportingFlyer talk 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WorldAtlas.com is okay, other two seem WP:TABLOID, and yet, these citation are not used in the article! Don't expect everyone to go do research, people will vote on what the article is and what is there. GNG still applies!! Simply saying this, that and the other. Wikipedia is fact driven, if the material isn't supported by any sources... well... And we don't need statistics on everything. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[4] may be the best source as it contains the complete list of countries which have never qualified. A lack of citations doesn't mean an article can't be kept per WP:NEXIST! SportingFlyer talk 13:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and not needed. Giant Snowman 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - a merge to National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup is also fine. This is content that would certainly be included in an almanac; there are plenty of references about individual countries never having appeared in a World Cup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 16 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.