Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament qualification


 * 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 merge to 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament. I sympathise with the argument that this page should be considered an integral part of 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament. However, the policy position is that subpages are not recognised as a valid construct in mainspace. So much so that the ability to create subpages in mainspace has been suppressed in the software. Some may think that this is unnecessarily bureaucratic and restrictive, but that is how the community in English Wikipedia want it to be and it has been confirmed in many discussions. All articles must be justifiable in their own right and not rely on another page as the "parent". Consensus can change, but a single AFD is not the place to change it. The bottom line is: if you have material that cannot be shown to be notable in its own right and you don't want it to be open to deletion on notability grounds then it must be included on a page whose subject is notable. SpinningSpark 22:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament qualification

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability, no independent sources with indepth coverage of this youth qualification tournament. This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (the not really correct section title isn't my idea), with so far universal agreement (apart from me) that this is notable, and not a single policy-based argument why this is notable (only inherited notability and otherstuffexists arguments). I expect the same kind of arguments here, I hope that some people (and whoever closes this) will do the effort to actually check for sources and indicate, based on the sources, whether this qualification is notable or not. Fram (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament, the article for the tournament proper. Waste of everyone's time having this discussion when the main article is so small that there's no need to create a separate spinoff for the qualifiers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate it when I'm all set for an epic battle between the forces of light and the powers of evil (who is who depends on your position of course) and then someone comes along to offer a voice of reason. Fram (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Serves as one stage of qualification for the U-17 World Cup, which is the most significant tournament at this level. Clear consensus from almost everyone except nom that this is notable, which they even admit. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are aware that notability is not decided by what the members of a project decide, but by what our general guidelines say? This tournament is two levels away from the world championship for U-17, which is again three age levels removed from the actual football world championship. How far down does is this inherited notability supposed to go? Fram (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as above; not notable enough for a separate article. GiantSnowman 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep If the main tournament is notable, then the qualification to that tournament is also equally notable. All current qualification and pre-qualification tournaments for U17, U19, U23 and Senior Men's have articles for most if not all confederations (and most of the Women's as well), the issue is really whether to apply notability as far back as 2001. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It should not be deleted. It is a notable tournament, so is the qualifying. Kante4 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection . . .Merge and redirect with the parent article. If notability is not inherited, then simply consider the qualification stage as a separate stage in the overall event and combine the articles (introduction/qualification/group stage/knockout stage). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Yes there are general guidelines, but notability is actually decided by the outcome of individual discussions and processes like this at AfD. Arguments invoking "three age levels removed from the actual football world championship." are facile and unrelated to the issue.Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a local consensus trumping the global consensus. Notability can not be overridden at AfD level, what you would need is a subject-specific notability guideline that gets accepted by the community (not just the project). Otherwise all you need to do or have is a lively project or a good way of canvassing to nullify WP:N completely. As for "facile" arguments; "If the main tournament is notable, then the qualification to that tournament is also equally notable." No, not at all. A qualification is almost invariably and logically less notable than the main tournament. While those qualifications may be notable as well, it should be demonstrated, not inherited. As an example: the qualifications for a Grand Slam tennis tournament are usually notable, the qualifications for much smaller tennis tournaments usually are not notable, even if the tournament itself is notable. Fram (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect - no need for this fork. space can be saved by turning the results lists into matrices alongside the group tables. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: What others said. Article could be improved but it is notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The qualification phase is an integral part of the competition, as it shows how a team is qualified to play in the final phase. The CONCACAF officials didn't just organize the final phase. They actually sat in conventions to discuss the format, the draws, the dates, etc for the qualifying phase. That page is NOT "the qualifying of the qualifying of" FIFA U-17 World Cup; it is a qualifying phase of a continental youth competition, organized by the continental governing body. This is like the Extra Preliminary Round in the qualifying rounds of the FA Cup should not be regarded as the qualifying of qualifying of .... qualifying of (13-fold of qualifying) the Cup final. Sofeshue (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet again, none of this makes it notable. Of course it is the qualifying phase, and of course it was organised by Concacaf officials. None of this matters one bit for this discussion. Fram (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any specific notability criterion for individual sport tournaments. But I would definitely assume that any continental tournament, organized by the continent's governing body, is notable. You claim that this tournament lacks in-depth coverage, that is a void claim. One thing I am sure, there is a lot of reporting in China about the AFC U-16 Championship, including the qualifying phase. 2001 was a long time ago, when internet was far less developed compared to now. That you cannot find a lot of coverage for this tournament doesn't mean that they don't exist. But even apart from that, it is notable because it is an integral part of a major continental youth tournament, just like we document all past FIFA world cup qualifications and FA cup qualifying rounds. Do you expect the 1888–89 FA Cup qualifying rounds to receive any in-depth coverage or to have any longlasting effect? It is notable, thus included, precisely because it is an integral part of a major football tournament. Sofeshue (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:N will do nicely, not everything has or needs a specific notability criterion. What we need is coverage, without coverage it isn't notable. That we may have other articles which lack notability is a well-known fact, but not a reason to keep this one as well. Notability is not inherited. And we have plenty of articles on pre-2000 subjects where we have no problem at all finding coverage online (and of course you are welcome to give offline references as well). Fram (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, the tournament is notable by its very nature. And for coverage, there is RSSSF. Nobody is going to fly to the Caribbeans or Central America and dig into their newspapers for reports of individual matches. Yes, for a big sport as football, there should be a clearer inclusion guidelines for individual tournament and individual editions of that tournament. That the Footy community currently lacks such guidelines does not warrant articles covering a major continental youth tournament being deleted. Sofeshue (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Common consensus is that if the tournament is notable enough, then so is its qualifying tournament. Joseph2302 09:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Many tennis tournaments are notable, but the qualifications are only notable for the really major ones. The same goes for many sports. There is no such "common consensus" you claim. 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The lack of documentation of those tenis qualifyings is because much less editors focus on them and even less editors are willing to take the time to write on wikipedia (building a lot of tables is not easy work), NOT because of their (un-)notability. They are indeed notable, and should stay here, IF someone covers it first. Sofeshue (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ??? Do you really claim that the qualifications of e.g. 2016 International Tennis Tournament of Cortina, 2016 Morocco Tennis Tour – Mohammedia, 2016 Vietnam Open (tennis), ... are notable events? That is totally misguided. These qualifications don't get coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, if even that. These would never be kept at AfD, but luckily no one is misguided enough to create articles for them in the first place. Fram (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ??? Are you really claiming that those diligent editors of seasons of the FA Cup qualifying rounds, all the way back to the 1888–89 season, are so misguided? I've given the coverage, importance argument before the Relisted breaker. And I am in no mood to engage in an angry quarrel with you. Feel free to insult. Sofeshue (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to the 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament, it's way too small to be a separate article and should be like the 1999 version of it with the qualification before the final round. Also what about adding the 2003 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament qualification article to this discussion as its the same state. Matt294069 is coming 00:37, 22 November 2016 (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.