Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the EuroBasket 1953 (2nd nomination)

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 12:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the EuroBasket 1953[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSTATS as a mere collection of standings and roster, as well as WP:GNG receiving only routine coverage like match summaries. Article was kept once as a procedural keep after I screwed up the nomination. Nominating it the right way this time. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG is met and they qualified for the main tournament, which consensus seems to be at the other current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination) indicates would be notable. - Galatz ^Talk 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see two sources in this article, one of which is a primary source and the other seems to just be a collection of stats, which is also not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Also, the FIFA World Cup is a more significant tournament than EuroBasket. Consensus at that AfD seems to be that if they qualified for a top-level tournament, like the World Cup, then that makes it notable. But this isn't a top-level tournament. If this were the FIBA World Championships, I could see notability if they qualified for the main tournament, but not a continental tournament, especially one which had no qualification process at the time, or at least not one that's mentioned in the article. Smartyllama (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that was the case then why didn't Israel at the 1964 AFC Asian Cup or any other year get nominated? - Galatz ^Talk 21:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not a valid argument. Now, if they were nominated and closed as keep, that would be a valid argument to keep this and vice versa, but that's not what happened. Smartyllama (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - But what you are saying happened didn't happen either. No one said because its the top level tournament. You are trying to pick and chose what you want to make it work for your argument. - Galatz ^Talk 21:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The AfD only dealt with top-level tournaments. It didn't say anything about continental tournaments one way or the other. My opinion is that if it's just a continental tournament, then this kind of article isn't notable, especially in an article where there's no prose and only one independent source. If the article were fleshed out a bit, like Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic, then in my mind it would be acceptable. But right now it's just stats, and per WP:NOTSTATS it should be deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You said above "Consensus at that AfD seems to be that if they qualified for a top-level tournament" but now you are saying something different. - Galatz ^Talk 16:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Consnesus at that page is that if they qualified for a top-level tournament, it's notable. If they failed to qualify for a top-level tournament, it's not notable. That's all the consensus is. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about what happens if it's not a top-level tournament, either that it is notable if they qualify, or that it's not. I think in that case, you have to look at the quality of the article, and in this case it's just a collection of stats. For continental-level tournaments, especially older ones like this, there often aren't enough sources to move the article beyond WP:NOTSTATS, even if the team qualified. Compare this article to Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic, which is very well-written and high-quality. That's the kind of article that should be kept. It doesn't have to be as in-depth as that, but there has to be something more than stats and a roster. If you could find some additional sources and add some prose, I would reconsider my vote. But for now, it fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:CFORK, and, judging by the lack of sources, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT as well. But you're oversimplifying the consensus as well. It really depends on the notability of the event - the FIFA World Cup is more significant than, say the Sepaktakraw World Championship, and therefore articles related to it are more likely to be notable. In the same way, top-level tournaments are, in general, more significant than non-top-level tournaments, and articles relating to certain aspects of them are more likely to be notable. We don't even have articles for individual tournaments of the latter, yet alone individual countries at individual tournaments. But again, this is just a general guideline, it depends on what specifically we have for that particular article, and right now, this fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:CFORK. That could change if additional information were provided, so if you want to keep the page, try to find some sources and improve the article, since it's not notable in its current form. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:CFORK, and WP:SPORTSEVENT, "for a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page." Information is copied off of EuroBasket 1953, and doesn't provide any further insight. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination) and related articles have been closed as delete after they were properly nominated. Smartyllama (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say Keep. This doesn't fail NSTATS because it provides explanation for the tables which the reader can view at his or her leisure. It's a bit of a stretch for GNG but I'm going to say that it does meet those guidelines because it's a systematic page which is part of a greater whole (EuroBasket championships) that uses the modicum of individual pages to hash out all its details that would be too bulky to put in a single page. A comment on the AfD itself-- why nominate only one page for deletion, when there is the entire

table which has a couple dozen of pages like this one? I imagine you're trying to get a precedent so the rest can be nominated; if that's the case, then this AfD should be including those additional pages in concept, because this decision would affect the rest. That needs to be considered as part of the consensus.Icebob99 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ROUTINE, read that and had a change of heart. Icebob99 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it is an international tournament, WP:NOTROUTINE, which would provide an argument for keep, only mentions Super Bowl or Olympics, which should probably be the standard for tournaments. Icebob99 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. This article is just stats and it's not clear to me how it could be anything more than a simple recap of the event. If it could be demonstrated (with references) that there was something significant about this, I would be willing to "keep" a prose article. Matt Deres (talk) 03:43, 28 November 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.