Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison


 * 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 no consensus. I'm not seeing an clear consensus one way or the other here and the discussion seems to have generally run out of steam. There's some evidence the nomination was disruptive, some arguments that it doesnt meet GNG but nothing I would call conclusive. Wouldn't object to this being nominated again in the future. Fenix down (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The rationale for deleting the article mentioned in the nomination was spurious and I would like to start a DRV. – PeeJay 13:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:
 * WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.
 * MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.
 * WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.
 * WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.
 * WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics.
 * Jopal22 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let me ask, what sources do you have to help with this article because how I see it is their no sources for a season comparison between each team. To say WP:OR isn't real is also incorrect because their is literally no references to compare teams. HawkAussie (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well this is really a performance record of each teams performance rather than a "comparison" as the article in named. The record (i.e. results of each season is widely available), and there is no conclusion drawn. I suppose I would throw this back, this page is essentially a collection of statistics showing results. Which statistics being shown do you think are either incorrect, cannot be verified, or are not objective? Jopal22 (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Stop Can we please wait until a consensus is reached here? Mainly because it is about a similar list and has more discussing going on. Also not everyone wants to discuss the same thing 7 times in a day. The nominator should've thought about this before nominating.  ~Styyx   Hi! ^-^  09:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. In line with the decision at Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison manipulating sports data like this constitutes OR and SYNTH, unless the charts themselves can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party.  How could I verify the accuracy of these charts?  Also, despite claims above about sources, this lists absolutely no sources.  (For links to six more of these see this discussion)  --Lockley (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep purely on basis of consensus at a recent related AFD, Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, which was kept. GiantSnowman 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination appears to be made in bad-faith as a WP:POINTY nomination in retaliation for the (somewhat questionable) result - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Article fails WP:GNG for having no citations. Issues with WP:OR, WP:ACCESS with mini browsers and Accessibility browsers. It's weird to say that this is MOS:COLOR and ACCESS enabled when it clearly is not. WP:NOSTATS is a major concern with these type of articles. I find all the keep votes strangely floored and majority are not providing any explanation why this should truly be kept. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Are people forgetting that WP:GNG is meant to be a thing as their is no sources for this comparison which is a red flag. Another one seems to be the fact that these Keep votes aren't trying to explain why they should be kept and just say they want it. HawkAussie (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a WP:REVENGE nomination - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Wm335td (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:SPLIT from the main article, and possibly rename to something else. This article serves a similar function to articles about the electoral history of a politician, in that it provides a place for tables that are too large too fit on the main page without WP:UNDUE problems, but which still hold encyclopedic content. Also, nomination was almost certainly disruptive. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2020 (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.