Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time table of the FIFA World Cup


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

All-time table of the FIFA World Cup

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

OR. There is no official table allocating points and positions in this manner: this is innovative use of data, interesting for a standalone website, but not encyclopaedic Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 17:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 17:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this not an official table for this? It is on FIFA's website. Jay eyem (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a table with the same info as the table on Wikipedia. It is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to anticipate other publications. Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I mean it isn't the exact same data because it's being updated with the current tournament, but I suspect that it will be fully updated at the conclusion of the tournament. The existence of that link says that there is an actual table, and the only data that isn't in that link are the confederations, and I don't see any harm in including those. I don't see why this article isn't encyclopedic. Jay eyem (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Jay eyem above - thousands of people have been viewing this page daily for a reason. Many people find this page's existence helpful. The statistics from this table provide an accurate summary of every country's performance in the FIFA World Cup using the same method of point-scoring that every association football statistics list uses. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR/SYNTH. Page views do not equal notability. GiantSnowman 08:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how it's OR or SYNTH when FIFA has the exact same table. The fact that they're not updated with exactly the same frequency is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Over 10,000 views in the last few months is decent numbers, I don't see how this is OR if this type of table has been done before at FIFA.com. And it's a decent list article which has been around for eight years, I can't see why it would be deleted now. We have historical statistic pages for football clubs and FIFA, seems logical to me to have an article of this nature. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The AfD rationale is idiotic. There are tons of pointless statistics lists on wikipedia, and this one is relatively interesting to some. I am pretty sure there is a statistics like this somewhere in the FIFA archives. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Haltik (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's a thing. I've seen such tables, online and offline, for both international tournaments such as the World Cup and national leagues such as the Premier League and the Bundesliga. But make it clear in the article that this is just one way of ranking the teams and not the ultimate method of determining who is better than whom. --Theurgist (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Paintspot. Useful statistical table. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no official table allocating points and positions in this manner: this is innovative use of data don't bullshit Kevin Mce, with all due respect. What is so innovative about putting all available data in one place, on one page. Have you got nothing more important to do. I guess whoever started this article must have reinvented the table. I guess black glass would be so innovative to you, you would piss your pants. Pernati (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very useful information. Foxy1219 (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Pass WP:LISTN to me. Hhkohh (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, they might soon need to "LISTN" to this upcoming consensus for "Keep", haha. But yeah, I 100% agree with you. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Paulinho28 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It is accurate and highly useful. No question but to keep. Officially Mr X (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

* Redirect or Merge - to National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup. Agreed with User:Theurgist here. If merge and need have to rename the article, then let it be.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup there's exactly the same table which also lists teams' top scorers (though no best performances). So it even includes information that the dedicated article doesn't. I voted "keep" and don't wish to see the table gone, but maybe merge and redirect the current article to that section? A standalone article doesn't have much potential for growth anyways. --Theurgist (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is useful and encyclopedic. No real argument has been presented for deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per the discussion above Goharshady (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Highly useful and accurate. No doubt to keep it Tucotuti (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2018 (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.