Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time Argentine Primera División table

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Courcelles 20:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Argentine Primera División table

[edit]
All-time Argentine Primera División table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODed this article with the rationale "Non-notable per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time English Football League 1st Division Table." The PROD was contested, but I still feel the article should be deleted. The article is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS because all it will ever be is a table of statistics a sentence or two of prose. It is also non-notable because it the subject has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Lastly, I have concerns that this may be a copyvio. I have asked Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) for her opinion on the copyvio and will await her response regarding that issue. Even if it's not a copyvio, I still think it should be deleted due to the issues I've outlined above. Jenks24 (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because:
  1. It does not violate WP:NOTSTATS. The cited rule does not give a general prohibition of articles containing only statistics. Just check the last sentence: "In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". The example given by the rule itself is a compilation of stats, but with sufficient explanatory text and the use of tables to enhance readibility. As long as it's not just a confusing and unreadable compilation of random stats, the article does not contravene the cited rule.
  2. It is not a copyvio. I'm not a copyright expert, but from my limited knowledge it doesn't look to be a copyvio. As you can see from the references, part of the table was published in rsssf (up to 2001/02). Then there are individual tables from rsssf for each championship, but there is no 1931-2011 all-time table published in that website (or any other that is not taking it from Wikipedia, as far as I know).
  3. It has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Examples:
I don't have time to keep looking around, but you get the gist of it. Being an all-time table there are no big changes every day, so there are not many news to report in the press regarding the matter. However, as you can see, it is regularly mentioned/cited.
Summary: WP:NOTSTATS does not prohibit articles containing only stats, it just asks the editor to make it decently readable and contextualized. If this article is not readable or contextualized, we should work on that, not delete it. There are enough reliable independent sources that cover the topic in question (actually, cover other topics while making reference to the topic in question).

Regards. Fache (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fail to see how this article violates NOTSTATS while Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 doesn't (the article is cited in the rule itself). I also fail to see how a fully referenced article can be OR. Regards. Fache (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless its a copyright violation. It can't quite be compared with similar articles on lower divisions recently deleted. Sitting on top of the All-time Argentine Primera División table is a genuine achievement while on lower division All-time tables this could just mean the club failed consistently to gain promotion. For top divisions, this tables make sense, but a bit more text would definetly give this article a better right to exist. Calistemon (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And keep any other tables of this nature. There are all kinds of ranking tables in Wikipedia (a perfect example cited above) and as long as it is footnoted and sourced properly there is plenty of encyclopedic value on it. There are also thousands of lists on Wikipedia, and this table could be split into several lists which would be perfectly acceptable, which makes no sense. Just because there are precedents it doesn't mean it was right to have deleted similar articles before. Proposing this article for deletion reeks of Systemic bias. At the very worst, move to a section in the Argentine Primera División article. --ChaChaFut (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apolgies to those involved for not replying sooner, I seem to have missed this on my watchlist. Thanks to Fache for providing those sources, although I can't read Spanish, I will take your word for it that those sources are discussing the all-time table in sufficient detail for it to be called significant coverage, which means GNG is met. Personally, I still feel that this falls foul of WP:NOTSTATS, criterion 3: "Wikipedia articles should not be excessive listings of statistics". I do feel that, as an article consisting only of two lines of text and the rest statistics, this is excessive. However, if the consensus is that this article is not excessive, then *shrug* so be it. To ChaChaFut, why does my nominating this article for deletion reek of systematic bias? Jenks24 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, at least not to me. You have nomiated a large number of those articles, regardless of which country and certainly not targeted individual leagues/countries alone. Your assessmet of the intro is correct, too, it is to short. The only thing I disagree with is that the article should be deleted. I've mentioned it in another discussion before, but featured lists like List of Formula One drivers prove that this kind of stats do have their place on Wikipedia and can even make it to the main page. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding NOTSTATS, I guess it depends on interpretation. The rule does not end where you end your cite, it later says: "[i]n addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." What I read there is "in cases where the article should be a list of statistics because there is no other reasonable way of putting the information, use tables."
Regards. Fache (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article would pass GNG with coverage of the sorts described by Fache, and while the lack of text is troubling, it can easily be addressed by someone with sufficient knowledge of Argentine football. Jogurney (talk) 04:20, 26 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/All-time_Argentine_Primera_División_table&oldid=1069118140"