Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday Night Football all-time team standings (2nd nomination)

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. Ultimately this falls short of verifiability requirements. WP:COUNTSORT can be thought of as an extension of WP:BLUE: if it's obvious, go ahead and add them up. However, here it is not at all obvious that the ESPN source supports the aggregate figures. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Night Football all-time team standings

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

I realize this article was very recently nominated for deletion (I missed that discussion). However, in looking to improve this article, I cannot. It is unsourced and I cannot find any sources to determine if the data on the page is correct or not.

I looked at the "keep" reasons in the last AFD in order to try to improve this article, and they pointed to references, but they were more about why "Monday Night Football" is notable, not this list of all-time standings.

Therefore, I'm nominating this article for deletion because it is unverifiable. It does not pass WP:GNG because there are not any references that speak to all-time MNF records.

I will withdraw this nomination if someone can show that this list is accurate. X96lee15 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any encyclopedic value in calculating the records of teams in only those games shown on a particular TV show, plus it is almost certainly OR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOR. Non encyclopedic list. Ajf773 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong/Speedy/Snow~~ Keep per the reasons given at the last AfD, which was only a few months ago. I realize this will likely get deleted here, which disappoints me, but it was clearly explained and demonstrated at the last AfD why the alphabet soup policies/guidelines/essays being cited there (presumably without being read) did not apply. Nevertheless, people kept using them as reasons to support deletion. Since my policy-based arguments were ignored last time, I'll just point you all to the last AfD and firmly state my position in favor of retaining the article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respected the last AFD, but when I came across this list and tried to update/verify/source it, I could not. If I can't find any sources for the list, it cannot possibly pass WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position (and I respect you quite a bit, so please understand this is not personal) and realize that this AfD will likely end in a 'delete' result. However, I am not comfortable with such an outcome so soon after the last AfD. I will tone down my prior statement though as it was too much of a knee-jerk reaction. Lepricavark (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for several reasons outlined below

I held the position of keep for the last AFD and see no reason to change it
The argument that there is no way to valildate is easily solved Monday Night All-Time Results
Two invalid deletion arguments have been made and should be ignored
1. Just because an editor cannot see a way to improve an article is not a reason to delete the article.
2. no encyclopedic value--see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions
There is no original research involvled. The sample sources below show that other third party news sources compile the data and the source above shows the all-time sources. See details at essay Counting and sorting is not original research.
The following third-party sources show pass of WP:GNG, discussing the topic of all-time records on Monday Night Football directly: INSIDE THE NUMBERS: The Dolphins And Monday Night Football Dolphins News 2013; Buffalo Bills Monday Night Football history: all 40 (and counting) games SB Nation 2015; News, Notes & Fun Facts Heading Into Patriots-Ravens on Monday Night Football CBS Boston 2016; Good News: The Redskins aren't as bad on Saturdays as they are on Mondays Washington Post 2016; The Redskins are worse on 'Monday Night Foot ball' than anyone is at anything Fox Sports 2016; 6 Things to know for the Jets-Cardinals Monday Night Football game USA Today 2016
Finally, the information is worthy of including into the main article. However because of the size of the content I believe it is best kept as a seperate list article to prevent the main article from becoming too large and unwieldy.

These are some of the many reasons to keep the article--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The all-time history link you provide only goes up to 2002. There's 14 years (and counting) of results that are not referenced. The reasons for deletion are that it fails WP:GNG and WP:V. The unreferenced tag on the article cannot be removed because of that. I'd love to be able to remove it, but there is no way. None of the references you provide can remove that tag, therefore, I can't see how it can pass WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you don't believe that there are sources for the final results of each MNF game played, as if sports newscasters and writers stopped covering the subject in 2003? That's ridiculous! Of course it can be sourced, it just hasn't yet. That is easily a surmountable problem. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're calling other's arguments "ridiculous"? Gotcha.

I believe there are sources for the final results for each MNF game played. However, I believe that this article is more than just simple counting and sorting. These games span 45 years. There are MNF games that are not played on Mondays. Are those included? Look at this recent edit on the article for example. It updated the Steelers win total by 1. Is it correct? Beats me. Can you tell me? Probably not. Are there currently errors on the page? Probably. Can we know? Not without a ton of work. And if the article does get to a point where it's 100% accurate, without a central reference that documents the records, it will get out of sync again. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no deadline. The "ridiculous" argument is that "there is no way" to remove the unreferenced tag. Sure it can be removed: an enthusiastic editor or editors can collaborate together and contribute to to the research, just like with every other article on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's extensive evidence that team MNF records have long been a matter of interest and coverage. Assuming an up to date table of the standings can't be located, there is no actual dispute about the scores of the games and these records can be easily kept current by mere clerical effort. I agree with Paul McDonald that routine counting and sorting do not make something into OR. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For transparency's sake, I'd just like to note that the Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research essay was written by Paulmcdonald and that 14 of the 18 edits on the essay were done by him. Also, "essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." — X96lee15 (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I got another one... Wikipedia:Quote your own essay. They seem to have wide acceptance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one non-Wikipedia hit for "Monday Night Football all-time results". That's here by ESPN, and all that is is a list you can click on to see various games by year. It also ends at 2002, so apparently they've lost even that minimal interest. So it fails WP:GNG, unless someone can produce more reliable sources. It's a stat right up there with best results after bye weeks.Clarityfiend (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment be sure to look at the other references found and shown above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Well, News, Notes & Fun Facts Heading Into Patriots-Ravens On Monday Night Football and 6 Things to know for the Jets-Cardinals Monday Night Football game treat it as sports trivia. What's your point? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The word "trivia" is not in either of the articles. I do not believe that is a fair assessment of the references.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Fun facts" is pretty much a synonym for trivia, and that's what they're called in both. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Good thing that's only one of the sources I provided (out of six), and the "fun facts" article is actually titled "News, Notes & Fun Facts Heading Into Patriots-Ravens on Monday Night Football" -- stop trying to make the articles say something they do not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until at least such a time as it can be conclusively proven that there are no errors in this list, and that the information contained in this list is accurate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and the reasons listed above. While Monday Night Football holds notability, this specific article does not for me. GauchoDude (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal point of view is not a reason to delete anything and is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary to include and I doubt the NFL has such a thing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused--you doubt if the NFL has records of results of Monday Night Football? What are you doubting? And as far as "unnecessary" goes, we don't WP:NEED to do anything.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lizard (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the WP:LISTCRUFT arguments, but the really compelling argument is X96lee15's, It updated the Steelers win total by 1. Is it correct? Beats me. Can you tell me? Probably not. WP:V is inviolable, and we fail that here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2017 (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.