The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This was never used and I also don't find it very practical. I think the best for these things is to use the talk page without a tag.
Magioladitis (
talk)
14:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - better to use the tlka page. Images may help improve an article but they aren't a deficiency that needs to be called out in article space with a maintenance tag. --
Whpq (
talk)
20:02, 2 July 2013 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The two 'no consensus' discussions were closed as that because the nominator bundled far too many templates together, and included a number of senior tournaments - as you fully well know. As the closing admin said, "The discussion was clouded by the diffuse collection of nominated templates. There may be consensus for deleting most of the youth templates, per related discussions." Recent discussions that have focussed solely on youth templates have ended in a 'deletion' consensus.
GiantSnowman10:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - This mess started in February, when one of these navigation boxes was
deleted because it failed WP:NAVBOX 2-4, which some deletionists used as a reason to delete all navboxes for youth tournaments. The first three or four discussions (as GS linked above) went on without much resistance, I guess there aren't many that see the need for navboxes for under-17 tournaments and such. In this discussion we are discussing under-21 tournaments, the highest level of youth football where the players are up to 23 years of age when the tournament is played, and most of them are regulars in the senior squads of European top clubs. I can understand why people want to delete the 2013 England squad, they did nothing extraordinary and was eliminated in the group stage, but if you compare to the 2013 Norwegian squad it was the third time a Norwegian team won a medal in an international tournament, and the first Norwegian team in 13 years to qualify for a championship. The 2011 Iceland squad was also pretty extraordinary, the first time ever(?) an Icelandic team is in an international tournament. So I believe we should examine the articles in the templates, and check if it passes the criteria listed in
WP:NAVBOX or not (if the articles don't mention the championship, why should we have a template that mentions it). But deleting all is not appropiate.
Mentoz86 (
talk)
02:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - I've watched some of these tournaments on ESPN 3 Live, this was broadcast and watched by millions of viewers worldwide, why shouldn't they be notable?
Subzzee (
talk)
06:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all Consensus is that youth templates should be deleted. Youth internationals do not meet our notability criteria, and templates like these only serve to create the impression that articles should be created for them.
Number5710:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
So you are saying that we should delete all the squad-templates for Conference teams aswell? I believe it is better to remove the red-link when you find a link to a non-notable footballer, then deleting a template that provides useful navigation between related articles.
Mentoz86 (
talk)
18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - Youth internationals do not confer notability upon individuals, nor should they confer notability on navboxes used to navigate between those individuals. –
PeeJay23:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: I said that in the last discussion, they maybe be deleted and have no notability, but the information should be added to the individual page of every player. If not, it's very difficult to see in which tournaments a player appearead in younger age. Some early bloomers are very talented in this youth tournaments but disappear as age progresses, without this templates, we can't correctely understand a player career. Wikipedia shouldn't have everything, but also shouldn't exclude helpful information because it doesns't follow a template guideline. Is there any simpler way to have this information without a template? I have my doubts.--
Threeohsix (
talk)
18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - they should never have been nominated in the first place. I originally wanted them to be kept but as so many have been deleted, I'm past caring.
TheBigJagielka (
talk)
12:31, 9 July 2013 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This was never used and I also don't find it very practical. I think the best for these things is to use the talk page without a tag.
Magioladitis (
talk)
14:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - better to use the tlka page. Images may help improve an article but they aren't a deficiency that needs to be called out in article space with a maintenance tag. --
Whpq (
talk)
20:02, 2 July 2013 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The two 'no consensus' discussions were closed as that because the nominator bundled far too many templates together, and included a number of senior tournaments - as you fully well know. As the closing admin said, "The discussion was clouded by the diffuse collection of nominated templates. There may be consensus for deleting most of the youth templates, per related discussions." Recent discussions that have focussed solely on youth templates have ended in a 'deletion' consensus.
GiantSnowman10:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - This mess started in February, when one of these navigation boxes was
deleted because it failed WP:NAVBOX 2-4, which some deletionists used as a reason to delete all navboxes for youth tournaments. The first three or four discussions (as GS linked above) went on without much resistance, I guess there aren't many that see the need for navboxes for under-17 tournaments and such. In this discussion we are discussing under-21 tournaments, the highest level of youth football where the players are up to 23 years of age when the tournament is played, and most of them are regulars in the senior squads of European top clubs. I can understand why people want to delete the 2013 England squad, they did nothing extraordinary and was eliminated in the group stage, but if you compare to the 2013 Norwegian squad it was the third time a Norwegian team won a medal in an international tournament, and the first Norwegian team in 13 years to qualify for a championship. The 2011 Iceland squad was also pretty extraordinary, the first time ever(?) an Icelandic team is in an international tournament. So I believe we should examine the articles in the templates, and check if it passes the criteria listed in
WP:NAVBOX or not (if the articles don't mention the championship, why should we have a template that mentions it). But deleting all is not appropiate.
Mentoz86 (
talk)
02:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - I've watched some of these tournaments on ESPN 3 Live, this was broadcast and watched by millions of viewers worldwide, why shouldn't they be notable?
Subzzee (
talk)
06:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all Consensus is that youth templates should be deleted. Youth internationals do not meet our notability criteria, and templates like these only serve to create the impression that articles should be created for them.
Number5710:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
So you are saying that we should delete all the squad-templates for Conference teams aswell? I believe it is better to remove the red-link when you find a link to a non-notable footballer, then deleting a template that provides useful navigation between related articles.
Mentoz86 (
talk)
18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - Youth internationals do not confer notability upon individuals, nor should they confer notability on navboxes used to navigate between those individuals. –
PeeJay23:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: I said that in the last discussion, they maybe be deleted and have no notability, but the information should be added to the individual page of every player. If not, it's very difficult to see in which tournaments a player appearead in younger age. Some early bloomers are very talented in this youth tournaments but disappear as age progresses, without this templates, we can't correctely understand a player career. Wikipedia shouldn't have everything, but also shouldn't exclude helpful information because it doesns't follow a template guideline. Is there any simpler way to have this information without a template? I have my doubts.--
Threeohsix (
talk)
18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - they should never have been nominated in the first place. I originally wanted them to be kept but as so many have been deleted, I'm past caring.
TheBigJagielka (
talk)
12:31, 9 July 2013 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.