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. Clear consensus against keeping individual pages. The arguments to keep are weakened somewhat by references to the games as a whole, whose notability is beyond dispute, and isn't the matter at hand. Indeed the matter at hand isn't notability per se, but the need for standalone pages, and the arguments to delete are stronger on that score. I will say it's odd to me that a sporting event this large wouldn't have coverage of individual events, and so if someone were to write a specific Football at the YYYY Maccabiah games that has prose and not just database entries, this discussion doesn't preclude its existence in mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2001 Maccabiah Games[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)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. There is past precedence to delete the year specific Maccabiah Games articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Keep loss of information with deletion. There is enough information for separate pages. What precedence? --SuperJew (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's been numerous AFDs for equivalent articles for other sports, whose articles on specific appearances at these Games were deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link them please? --SuperJew (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no need for separate articles. Giant Snowman 20:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per previous AFDs on Maccabiah Games individual event articles, these also don't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least until 1985 (which is significant for itself due to the participation of apartheid South Africa). As a side remark: I wasn't around for previous AFDs, but I find it perplexing that the "the third-largest sporting event in the world by number of competitors" (as it says in the Maccabiah article) are considered to not pass WP:GNG. If anything, an effort should be made to expand individual event articles in which notable olympians (Agnes Keleti, Mark Spitz, etc.) participated.--Eranrabl (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is totally in line with similar articles that we have in other international tournaments. No reasons have been presented that explain why these would be singled out. Very odd. The Games themselves are as pointed out highly notable. Competitors are in good numbers Olympians and the like. The referencing is appropriate in general. I also didn't see the prior AfDs. And as we know, otherstuffexists is a perfectly fine argument when not the ONLY argument made. And we have Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics. 2006 Arab Women's Championship. 1963 African Cup of Nations. 2020 OFC Nations Cup. 2021 FIFA Arab Cup. 1957 Latin Cup. 2021 Copa América. 1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup. 2019 WAFF Women's Championship. This is so out of synch with the existence of not just these pages -- but literally hundreds more just like it - that this nom is very troubling. And the comment by Giant that there is no "need" for individual articles misses the above point, as well as the of course obvious point that there is no "need" for any article on Wikipedia. That's never a reason therefore for deletion. 2603:7000:2143:8500:401A:1701:C4F5:B270 (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of significant coverage that is independent of the tournament organisers, which is what is required to show notability. Number of participants in the overall games is irrelevant without showing specific coverage of the football tournament. Spike 'em (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There’s no doubt that the Maccabiah Games themselves are notable and it’s common to have sub-articles for individual sports at multi-sport events. That said, the sourcing seems pretty spotty and the overall Maccabiah Games articles don’t seem big enough to warrant spin-off articles. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are these matches even played by senior teams? the articles themselves dont even include squads or players or anything and just link the country instead of the national teams. they need a lot of work. for me, this is delete with the poor state the articles are in.Muur (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The matches are played by senior teams. And usually there is also a youth category. For example this last Maccabiah there was an Open category (any age), a youth, and a Masters (over 35). It's not the national teams that play, but rather a team selected for the Maccabiah (only Jewish athletes). The state of an article has no bearing on a deletion discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the tournament itself is noteable, this just provides more backgroud on the tournament. Not sure what the issue with keeping it is.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I sense we are at the ever present football divide again but I'm relisting the AFD for a week any way since editors are still commenting on this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe no need for separate articles. Agreed to GiantSnowman. ZanciD (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not enough coverage or sourcing to warrant separate articles. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2022 (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.