Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup statistics


 * 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. My apologies for relisting this discussion, I could have closed it as Delete yesterday if I had read the discussion more closely. Liz Read! Talk! 08:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup statistics

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After a discussion at WT:FOOTY, this isn't a suitable article - it's mostly WP:OR, with some WP:SYNTH. Everything that isn't simply transcribed from other articles (such as goalscorers and clean sheets) has no encyclopaedic information. We aren't a statistical database, and not a place to store information.

Usually when we have tables, they are based on other reliable sources making the same observations, rather than a WP:SYNTH to show something completely irrelevant. We don't show the total number of man of the match awards someone has won in their career - why do so here? I can't see anything that is here that is suitable to be merged into any other article, as everything of note that is sourced is already in the main 2022 FIFA World Cup article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete- Agree with Lee Vilenski. Anything relevant that is not already included in the parent article can comfortably be merged into it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my comments at the linked discussion. Pointless article- we should also delete the corresponding pages for previous WCs too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete- So much is unsourced and trivial information. Kante4 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with nom and the other !votes that this and similar articles for prior events are unnecessary and should be merged with their parents articles. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment- The World Cups since 2002 have such articles. Sure, you can delete some of the more extraneous detail and merge. But some data, like the Man of the Match (which did start in 2002), maybe create for those cups articles like 2014 FIFA World Cup awards? igordebraga ≠ 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no. 2014 FIFA World Cup awards doesn't cite any sources except FIFA, which isn't secondary. So it's possible that would get deleted too. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That article is also a bad idea, why do we need to split off this information so badly? Data like the Man of the match award is so unencyclopedic. We don't have a source covering the list, we are SYNTHing the table of them, players aren't judged on man of the match awards won, and it also varies from broadcaster to broadcaster (as well as by sponsor) who won the award. I'd actually recommend deleting all such statistics only articles as WP:NOTSTATS.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete OR and unnecessary. Relevant parts could easily be incorporated into the parent article as stated above. REDMAN 2019  ( talk )  19:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, OR. GiantSnowman 22:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I think we shouldn't delete it becous 2022 FIFA World Cup is too long so we can marge from it to 2022 FIFA World Cup statistics.
 * If we delete it we should delete also:
 * 1/ 2014 FIFA World Cup statistics
 * 2/ 2018 FIFA World Cup statistics
 * ايـوب (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should delete both of them too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I shall put the remainder up for AfD after this one. The main article doesn't meet WP:SPLIT, as it simply isn't too long. Even if it were, the statistics isn't a suitable split. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep because it is valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.171.230.184 (talk • contribs)
 * Weak Keep Since I think if we merge everything, the parent article will be too long, but as long as the information is somewhere I don't particularly care where it is. Smartyllama (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything that is sourced, or a massive WP:SYNTH issue that isn't already in the main article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe that this statistics page about the 2022 FIFA World Cup, is the one place where all this information, regarding the records and statistics for this World Cup, can be easily found in one place. Yes Wikipedia is not the place to simply compile statistics, but this page is useful for a whole community of football fans who want easily accessible information and statistics regarding this World Cup. I get that some statistics are featured on the main 2022 World Cup page, but porting over all the statistics that are just held on this page would cause the other page to become clustered due to the fact that most people who are reading that page don't care for most statistics except the vital ones (goalscorers etc),, whereas this page is for those that have a deeper interest in the subject and want a more detailed look at the statistics that you can't find all in one place as easily as in this article. That's why I think this article should stick around, but let me know what you think.
 * MessiIsMyBezzie (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. This is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK because (1) much of the stats in this article are trivial, and (2) the parent article can absorb the useful information from this page as it is not terribly long. I support the deletion of these "stats" articles for prior World Cups as well.  Frank   Anchor  19:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Because it is one of the biggest sporting events that exist, it concatenates information that is dispersed in a less objective way in other places. It is of relevance. Svartner (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsourced information though, right?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article have more than 60 references linked with it. Why is unsourced? Svartner (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the 11 sections, seven are unsourced. Three of the remaining exist in the main article. The only other one, is a WP:SYNTH and WP:TRIVIA piece on man of the match results, which is not encylopedic, as a non-sporting achievement that people don't measure.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the unsourced stuff is determined using basic math, which does not require a source per WP:CALC and is not actually OR or SYNTH as NOR makes quite clear. To pick a statistic at random, "Largest victory margin: 7 goals" is not sourced, but we have sources for all the scores of all the games, and we don't need a citation to determine the margin of victory of each game (basic subtraction) or which margin of victory was the greatest (basic arithmetic as well.) If the scores themselves are sourced, which they are, then a statistic like that does not require a citation. Smartyllama (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how CALC works. CALC means if you have a source that has some information, you can do basic maths on the text in the source to draw a conclusion. It doesn't mean - oh, let's just not source it. We should also never infer information from other Wikipedia articles and use that as a source. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Plus, if no sources are actually talking about things like "largest winning margin" then we shouldn't either. Pure, basic unsourced WP:TRIVIA.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The results of all the matches appear to be cited in this article, we don't have to rely on other articles. And even if they weren't, it's easy enough to cite them, the sources certainly exist so that's not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not good enough to source "largest victory margin" to a match result. First, it's a piece of WP:TRIVIA, second this isn't something that is being talked about in sources (and therefore, we shouldn't either). For a better example of how WP:INDISCRIMINATE this list is, we have information sourced to a non-RS about the "oldest coach", and tidbits like "One player each plays in the leagues of Colombia, Hungary and United Arab Emirates.". There is nothing here that isn't already in other articles that needs to exist.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. There’re pages like this for every World Cup since 2002, there’s no reason to cut this one after over two decades of precedent.  pluma  ♫ ♯ 20:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those ones are also suitable for deletion .  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument for keeping an article.  Frank  Anchor  02:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is valid.--Interpires01 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sitting on the fence because a) while I see valid points for the article to be deleted as indicated in discussions, NOTSTATS and OR notwithstanding, b) WP has enough room to hold all this, there is no size limit. That being said, leaning keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 02:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete A lot of WP:OR. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.