Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1930 FIFA World Cup - Group 1


 * 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 keep. faithless  (speak)  07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1930 FIFA World Cup - Group 1

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Original concern was "Article shows few signs of expansion beyond its current state. Line-ups from the 1930 World Cup are hard to find, so this article will probably never be able to reach the standards of, for example, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A." Further to this, in its current state, the article adds nothing to its main article. – PeeJay 11:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 11:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. I'd like to keep the article. --necronudist (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Already covered in the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per lugnuts. Renee (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - material is covered in main article. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Line-ups can be found in the official match reports on FIFA.com .   A R  TYOM    16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Artyom, match reports and lineups are available (e.g. ), so this article could be expanded to the standards of 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A. Jfire (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; the test is not whether the page is likely to be expanded, which is an unknowable quantity, but whether it can be expanded. As shown above sources are available to enable expansion. I have suitably tagged it. BlueValour (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ban  Ray  11:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Line-ups are not hard to find. If the 2006 one stays, so should this one. Ban  Ray  11:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but needs improvement. -- Alexf42 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination ignorant of subject area - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be a case of presentism. matt91486 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The information is already included in the main article, an at present is just a repeat of that NapHit (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per BanRay and other arguments about sourcing and expansion. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Close as keep - As nominator, I have been swayed by the arguments raised here, and I withdraw the nomination. – PeeJay 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a non-admin I'm somewhat reluctant to close this, so I'll satisfy myself with a keep instead - sourcing is possible, but improvement is needed. EJF (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.