2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying: Other competitions qualify you and all those pages are linked to in the main article.  This page just repeats a lot of information already available.  Chris 1834 Talk 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Chris 1834 Talk 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello.  I understand that there is repeated information, but other information is not.  The ranking system is nowhere to be found, as it is deleted from the main page every time the teams qualified by ranking.  What I propose is that if the page is deleted, the tables be placed somewhere, either in the articles of the continental tournaments, or in the Club World Cup article.  If you tell people that a team is qualified by ranking and at no time show them that ranking, they will not understand it Largopajero ( talk ) 15:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will give you an example.  In argentine Primera Division the relegation is defined by a table made up of several tournaments, there is no tournament that defines it, but the table is shown somewhere.  In this case we can't even put a link to the 4-year confederations' ranking because it is nowhere to be found.  It must appear somewhere.  https://en.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Argentine_Primera_Divisi%C3%B3n#Relegation_based_on_coefficients Largopajero ( talk ) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete –  Per nom.  Unnecessary fork, the ways in which the clubs qualifyed could be in the main article.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  But the tables are eliminated when the teams qualify.  If that didn't happen, I would never have made this page.  I have no problem moving them to the main article if they are not deleted, otherwise I feel like the rankings should stay somewhere.  Largopajero ( talk ) 18:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete –  Per nom.  Also considered an unnecessary fork.  I consider that it is more appropriate to list just the teams in contention at the main 2025 FIFA Club World Cup article, which is a table that does not show the teams that are not in contention.  Such a table in the main article would not be relevant until probably the fourth year of the four year qualifying process (before which far too many teams are in contention), and such tables existed for all confederations at this article and slowly reduced as teams were no longer in contention, and finally disappeared when all teams either qualified or were eliminated.  There is discussion on at the moment about the formatting of this table, and whether the subset listed is WP:CALC or relying too much on WP:OR in the application of WP:CALC.  (link here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#FIFA_Club_World_Cup_teams_in_contention ).  This discussion may be relevant if this article survives the AFD process.  To list the entire tables for each confederation as a static, non-reducing table (i.e. showing all teams not just those in contention) may have difficulties with WP:NOTSTATS .  Matilda Maniac ( talk ) 22:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What I believe is that somehow you have to show people how the team qualified.  If you simply say that it was due to ranking, there is no information because the ranking is not found anywhere.  Largopajero ( talk ) 23:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All qualified clubs via continental championship and  the 4-year ranking are more than enough sourced in the main article.  The ranking can also be seen in this specified source FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking - inside.fifa.com .  It is no real qualifying competition to meet WP:GNG as a stand-alone article.  Mir ia~01 ( talk ) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, but surely the table will be deleted when the new classification begins.  It will not remain for the archive.  Furthermore, if being able to see the tables on an external website is enough, there should not be any tables on Wikipedia Largopajero ( talk ) 03:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that you don't want to overload the main article with tables, that's why I created another one separately.  I insist that it has information that is not found anywhere on Wikipedia.  What I propose is that if you decide to delete the article, find a place to show the tables and how the teams qualified by ranking.  Largopajero ( talk ) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The information on rankings is referenced, at the current FIFA reference or at Footy rankings.com .  An alternative to tables that reduce and disappear is to restore to the main article the table for each Confederation showing the figures of just the small subset of teams that did qualify by this method.  Again, that can be accommodated at the main article, small tables so it doesn't unbalance the whole article, and not as a fork to a separate article.  Matilda Maniac ( talk ) 03:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I totally agree.  Again, I feel like the tables should be somewhere, I only made this article because on the main page they were deleted when the qualifications were resolved.  I believe that showing the qualifieds and the first team eliminated (to reference the score to be overcome), is enough Largopajero ( talk ) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete –  Per nom.  and @Matilda Maniac: No real qualifying competition as it does not meet WP:GNG as a stand-alone article.  Still in contention 4-year ranking in the main article, as it is the current practice, is sufficient.  Mir ia~01 ( talk ) 00:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there is not a qualifying tournament for this, so this article is nonsense.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So an article for ranking like these?  UEFA coefficient , FIFA Men's World Ranking Or the tables where they would go?  Largopajero ( talk ) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No separate article for these tables is needed.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 17:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know, I think they should be in the main article, but there are only the teams left in contention.  That's why I created this one.  Once the teams finish qualifying, the ranking information will be lost Largopajero ( talk ) 13:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the grounds of WP:SPLIT .  The 4-year ranking tables are useful information but they really clutter up the main article.  I think having them in this article is a good compromise between keeping in the parent article, and removing from the parent article.  B L A IXX 15:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another alternative  - for the main article - is to restore the tables but only for those teams that actually qualified by this rankings method, such as the table below.  I don't think it would unbalance the article having 6 small tables, and it doesn't need the level of detail from each season with wins/draws/losses/rounds: that information can be found from the reference if required.  As there are secondary references available (such as Footy rankings) that alleviates the danger that the information at the current primary reference from FIFA will be simply wiped and unavailable at the start of the next cycle.  The extra 6 tables giving more details about the champions (venue of finals and runners-up etc.) are completely unnecessary as they can be found directly at the sections on the knockout stages of each of the relevent articles for the confederation tournaments.  Matilda Maniac ( talk ) 00:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not far from that idea.  Yes, I consider that at least the best team that is not in the qualification zone should be shown, to show the points that were necessary to obtain, to qualify.  I think that the existence of an external link to see the rankings is not a sufficient argument, because under that criterion, it would not be necessary to put tables of any competition.  Regarding the details of the matches, I don't see anything wrong with it, it is something that provides information, that better explains how the teams reached that score and that does not take up additional vertical space for the article.  Then, thinking about the future, when the World Cup is being played and there are group tables and knockout stage brackets, it does make me believe that another article is a good idea, although I understand the arguments that suggest that it is not necessary Largopajero ( talk ) 01:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Club 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total River Plate 22 23 19 13† 77 Boca Juniors 18 18 35 71 Olimpia 20 11 26 57 Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The rankings have the official FIFA website as a source, as does the scoring system. What other source is needed? Let me know and I'll add it Largopajero ( talk ) 17:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two more sources added Largopajero ( talk ) 18:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is the significant coverage? Two from FIFA, one from ESPN, one from Goal. All routine. Giant Snowman 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain to me what you consider significant coverage? Or give me an example, please Largopajero ( talk ) 19:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Many sources added, such as BBC, New York Times, Forbes, among others. Please let me know what else is needed. Largopajero ( talk ) 05:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coment Many arguments for deleting the article justify that it is not a qualifying tournament or that there is information that is repeated from the main articles of the confederation tournaments. I think that something similar happens in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification , where five of the six confederations use their continental tournaments as qualifiers. Even in this article there is more repeated information because the entire knockout stage brackets are in the article. I think that in a split article it is normal for information to be repeated. It is a good opportunity to define a design for this new form of qualification, which is unprecedented. Largopajero ( talk ) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete