Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Football Elo Ratings

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Football Elo Ratings

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

This article does not attribute any article-specific information to reliable sources. The only attributed information here is to the Elo system, not to the self-styled "World Football Elo Rankings".

This article is filled with nothing apart from a brief description of Elo and original research. The entire article is based off of a website that somebody just created and an advertisement of that website. It is the epitome of self-created material.

The article does not meet the Wikipedia standards for notability. Anyone can create a ranking page for International Football teams, that doesn't make it notable. The Elo system needs variables like the k-factor put into it, variables that have been put in by this person that created the page. Many people would for example question his counting of international friendlies. It is completely arbitrary and completely original research.

Even if you like the site, it is not notable and should not be on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source or show why the site is notable, go ahead and do so. Otherwise the article should be deleted.

Again, it doesn't matter whether you like the site or not. I could create a site tomorrow (or give me a few days) with a similar Elo system but that is different in several ways. Would that site be just as notable as this one and get a page also? It's absurd. Anonywiki (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a frivolous request. If you like to see better references, please ask for those on the page first before requesting to delete the subject from wikipedia.

The Elo ratings are not just anyone's personal opinion about who the best team at the moment is, but were a serious attempt 14 years ago to apply a rating system similar to that used in chess and go to international football teams (recently it has been applied for club football as well). For several reasons, luck probably included, this method has become widely known: it is the only rating consistently named besides the FIFA rankings. Check for example the Football rankings website, a site for hard-core association football rankers, where Runyan's Elo ratings get almost as much discussion as the FIFA ratings. A 2009 article entitled A critical survey of football rating systems in the series "Science and football", compares the ratings used for all kinds of football leagues (rugby, college football, etc.); one for each, except for international football where both the FIFA and Elo rankings are assessed.

In the meantime, a "World Football Elo Ratings" Wikipedia page exists in 13 languages, the English page alone gets 20,000 visits per month when there are no major championships, and the template for the National football team infobox has contained places for Elo ranking and ranking history since 17 July 2006 (basically the same day that FIFA rankings were added). I can't figure out right now how to count the number of wikilinks to a page, but there are likely to be many hundreds to this one (there are 220 national team pages alone with a link). Deleting this page will cause a lot of unnecessary grief. Afasmit (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For reasons given by Afasmit--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another source. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above two examples of notability are a basic start, though the first is inaccessible. I think the most relevant issue is: Wikipedia:GNG. The first point is:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

ESPN is what I would consider a reliable source as per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. However it needs to be more than a one mention in one article. I am fine with keeping it if you can find multiple similar references.

The notability of it should also be worked into the article... eg. "World Football Elo Ratings has been mentioned on ESPN, abc and used on the website xyz", that is how websites get notable. Using the Elo system doesn't make it notable. Also the "History" section should be about the history of Football Elo Ratings, not Elo itself.Anonywiki (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reports on BBC Sport and The Guardian. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jmorrison. Giant Snowman 10:10, 16 October 2011 (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.