Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copa Sudamericana 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 keep. There is some consensus to do so, and also this behaviour should not be rewarded in any way. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Copa Sudamericana 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) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:14, 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)


 * Delete WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 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) 15:27, 27 July 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! ^-^  09:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, there's a bunch of these in the pipe. It's a perfectly good nomination though & consensus has been reached on Styyx's link.  The result of the Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison was delete because WP:SYNTH.  It raised the same question on seven more:  this one, UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison, AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison, Performance record of clubs in the Premier League, EuroLeague clubs performance comparison, and Euro Hockey League clubs performance comparison, all of which have hatched their own concurrent AfD processes.  I'll be voting delete on all seven.  My understanding of OR and synth is, unless the charts themselves can be sourced from some reliable independent third party, rearranging data in this way, "summarizing" it, "collating" it, is out of bounds.  Are the contents of the charts verifiable without having to re-create the entire chart as a check?  It's a separate problem that all seven are lightly sourced at best.  This one has zero.  --Lockley (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is as encyclopaedically soft and prone to enthusiastic creations a subject as it gets. The attempt at inclusion collides with WP:NOTSTATS since the content here merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion, in combination with the WP:NOTEVERYTHING guideline, i.e. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. (Emphasis in the original.) We do not have independent sources busying themselves with the subject as presented and created. Kudos for the effort undertaken for the text's birth. But Wikipedia is not a collection of randomly put-together information. -The Gnome (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. The nominator should have used the bundle function. -The Gnome (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - You can't just compare this performance comparison with this one as the UEFA Champion League has sources (only to the main page for that team but still its a source) compared to this performance stat where the only reference is to a RSSSF which shows only the winners and runner-ups. So I am basically calling it a fail by WP:GNG standards. HawkAussie (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello everyone, i vote to keep the article, i am the autor, obviously everyone can edit, but i made it in comparison to the UEFA articles, its true it has no comparison, as the UEFA has all sources for the teams and CONMEBOL does not have. If the UEFA articles and all articles of this nature (Performance comparison) are kept, this should be kept too. Thanks, open for dialogue Cabj94 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Cool list. This seems to fail WP:GNG though. Plus, I think it can be deleted on WP:NOSTATS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING grounds also. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Bad faith nomination.   Ravenswing     23:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a WP:REVENGE nomination. As seen in this exchange here as Nfitz has stated above. Wm335td (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst there is an argument that the nomination was made in bad-faith, that should not rule out dealing with articles which should not be included – Wikipedia is not a sports almanac and this may be synthesis. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 13 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.