Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA World Cup records and 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 keep. Cleanup can be further discussed outside afd, but there is a clear consensus against deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup records and statistics

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

I don't think there is a valid list criteria, most is either unsourced, or the sources don't cover what is being stated. We aren't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information about a subject, and certainly fails WP:NOTSTATS. Also fails WP:LISTN as not being a collection of items discussed in sources as a whole.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - All sources can be found on the Cup pages themselves. Why are these and many others like Tour de France records and statistics for example no problem, but this one is? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is a very poor argument. I'm not sure which sources are pointing towards everything here being notable.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is true. Picking an overly specific record at random, which article can I find the source for Most meetings between two teams, final-four or final (not counting 3rd place match). So much of the article is obviously OR. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need a source for something that can be determined by basic counting. We have a source for semifinal and final matchups. That, as Aquatic Ambivalence said, can be found on the articles about the Cups themselves and they are all sourced very reliably. From there all you have to do is count, which doesn't require a source and is not OR. Smartyllama (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So I can add any old rubbish that I can count from other articles? Right, most games played between two teams on a Friday it is then. Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And the act of me choosing a random statistic, going through multiple articles (on a site deemed not to be reliable) to tabulate possible options before getting a final answer sounds like research to me. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WP:CALC still requires sourcing on the article it's on, it's not a case of just checking other articles. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough to add the sources from the other articles to this one if they aren't already there, but in this case the first table has citations to all the results of all the tournaments, from which one only needs to do basic arithmetic to derive most of the other statistics. And this still isn't a deletion issue, we can continue this discussion on the article talk page after this AfD has run its course if you like but this isn't the appropriate place for it. Obviously we need to draw the line somewhere, I don't think any of the keep !voters seriously think "Most games played between two teams on a Friday" is an appropriate statistic here whether it's OR or not, but the question of where we draw that line is a content issue, not something that should be handled at AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment inside this mess of WP:NOTSTATS, there probably is some encyclopedic content that is worth keeping. I think right now, about 80% of the article is junk, but that could be removed, leaving an encyclopedic list of key stats (e.g. which teams have won the most time, which players have appeared/scored/assisted the most times). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren't all of those already present at FIFA World Cup?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's maybe enough content not covered there that a separate article may be warranted. Gone through the sections currently in this article, and my views are:


 * 1) Debut of national teams - not a statistic or record, so irrelevant to this article. Should be covered in History of the FIFA World Cup if anywhere
 * 2) Overall team records - needs sourcing, but valid table of stats
 * 3) Medal table - made-up junk, as the FIFA World Cup doesn't award gold, silver and bronze medals (it isn't the Olympics)
 * 4) Comprehensive team results by tournament - unreadable table, unsourced, clear WP:NOTSTATS violation IMO
 * 5) Hosts - acceptable section
 * 6) Results of defending champions - intersection of 2 tournaments, so doesn't seem that relevant. Not seen it covered that much in sources (apart from the mentions of group stage exits for previous champions in 2010, 2014, 2018)
 * 7) Results by confederation - looks like WP:OR, and table is way too long. WP:NOTSTATS applies here
 * 8) Active consecutive participations - unsourced junk
 * 9) Droughts - not covered as a topic in lots of sources, so not needed
 * 10) General statistics by tournament - useful content that could be sourced comparitively easily. Section could be moved to nearer the top and renamed to e.g. Tournament summary, as it's probably the most key stats breakdown
 * 11) Teams: Tournament position - useful content would be most wins, most appearances (and their consecutive counterparts), everything else could probably be culled
 * 12) Teams: Tournament progress - WP:OR junk
 * 13) Players - some useful stats, but needs some culling of irrelevant stats. And again, needs sourcing
 * 14) Goalscoring - useful content is most goals, youngest/oldest, fastest/latest goals, most total goals in a match, everything else could be culled
 * 15) Own goals - content in separate article, heading not needed
 * 16) Top scoring teams by tournament - WP:OR
 * 17) Goal scoring by tournament - WP:OR
 * 18) Assisting - the current stats are sufficient and well sourced
 * 19) Penalties - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS
 * 20) Penalty shoot-outs - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS, all matches covered in separate article anyway
 * 21) Extra time - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS
 * 22) Tiebreakers - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS
 * 23) Goalkeeping - needs culling to basic achievements e.g. most clean sheets, most goals conceded
 * 24) Coaching - needs culling and sourcing for important acheivements e.g. most WC wins, matches won
 * 25) Refereeing - needs sourcing, but not convinced it's needed anyway
 * 26) Discipline - quickest yellow and red cards are mentioned in sources, so could be kept
 * 27) Suspension, Fine & Other sanctions sub-sections - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS
 * 28) Teams: Matches played/goals scored - lots of WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS that needs culling but e.g. most wins is relevant
 * 29) Teams: Overall performance (winning percentage) - WP:OR, WP:NOTSTATS
 * 30) Upsets - overall section okay if sourced
 * 31) Hat-tricks- covered elsewhere
 * 32) Streaks - mostly irrelevant WP:OR
 * 33) Host records - is covered in Hosts section anyway
 * 34) Attendance - relevant, but covered in main article anyway
 * 35) Others - all junk


 * So there's an absolute tonne of junk that could be removed, but underneath that, I believe there is just about enough passable, sensible, encyclopedic content to justify an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue quite a bit of what is sourced and listed above as being ok is WP:TRIVIA, such as quickest yellow cards, most wins by a team, etc.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN. I have no issue if User:Joseph2302 or any other user would like to move this page to userspace and take the time to move the encyclopedic content to the appropriate articles.  Frank   Anchor  15:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - There must be sources for World Cup stats, and deletion is not the solution when the only real problem is that far too many niche stats are included on the page. – PeeJay 15:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - most of the info are sourced and worth keeping--Baronedimare (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page was split from FIFA World Cup long, long ago per WP:NOTSTATS: "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". There is a role for an extended stats page under NOTSTATS, and it seems like a misuse of the policy to delete a page that was created to help comply with NOTSTATS. I agree it's gotten bloated over the years and needs to be cut back, but deletion is a step too far. —Wburrow (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article as it was when nominated was completely indiscriminate and an obvious WP:NOTSTATS failure. I believe there is a place for it but all of the pointless stuff needs culled. I've started to try and improve the article as an alternative to deletion. Thanks to Joseph2302 for adding thoughts here and to Lee Vilenski for taking this to AfD, it probably wouldn't have been improved otherwise. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can someone please answer my question above? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, as set out on the talk page, some users revert many times. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs a massive prune and sourcing of what is left, which I tried to instigate a day or two ago on its talk page, but I think it is a valid content fork from FIFA World Cup. Spike &#39;em (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep While I understand the frustration of the OP, I think that there are enough legitimate World Cup records and statistics which make this article worth keeping; however, I do think a major discussion needs to be had about what should and shouldn't remain, even with a lot removed it still feels like much of it is interesting to football nerds but not actually notable. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason to delete it IMO. Lots of sources and the biggest sporting event in the world is certainly notable to have a stats page Felix Croc (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it isn't WP:NOTSTATS, it is not just random numbers, names and statistics in their raw form, it's a very important information for many people who are interested in the World Cup and football in general, the unsourced phrase should be tagged or removed, we can delete all junks but we shouldn't delete the whole article. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the stuff is, in fact, sourced, or does not need to be sourced per WP:CALC as it's just counting or other basic math based on stuff that is sourced. Basic math is not OR, so things like appearance droughts can be obtained by citing which teams appeared in which World Cups (easy enough and it's already done) and then simply counting. That's not OR, we don't need sources that count for us. for the rest, that's not a deletion issue, that's a content isue. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The article is low quality, but the deletion process is not the place to deal with flaws in an article. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, but yes, cleanup is definitely needed. The records themselves need to be sourced properly—not just for WP:V/WP:NOR reasons (WP:CALC notwithstanding), but for WP:NPOV (in particular WP:BALASP) reasons: we can extract basically limitless statistical information from the raw data, but not all such information is worth including on this article, and that determination of relevance is supposed to come from the sources, not editors. That being said, I do think this is a valid topic for an article (or sub-article/article split, as the case may be). I'll note that FIFA World Cup top goalscorers is a WP:Featured list (and I should probably state for the record that I was one of the reviewers), so it's not like we can't have high-quality articles on FIFA World Cup statistics. I'm willing to reconsider my position on this if, after cleanup, it turns out that a viable article does not remain. TompaDompa (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and reach a consensus about what stats are worth keeping. -- Tanonero    (msg)  12:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clean-up is OK, but deletion is overkill. As written above, the main longstanding purpose of this page is to split content from main article FIFA World Cup. Guideline WP:SPLITLIST applies, and is compatible with WP:NOTSTATS: If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to [...] split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy. So keep it short, but keep it. Place Clichy (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: deletion is unnecessary as the page still has many valuable info to be taken. But agree that there is a need to create a separate list for separate sections regarding FIFA World Cup records. HiddenFace101 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep valid list meets WP:LISTN. As others have stated it can be paired or split to WP:PRESERVE. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Would advise WP:SNOW close at this point. Nothing else can be said, consensus has been clearly reached. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article obviously needs a clean-up, but the subject is too valuable for deletion, especially for those who enjoy football and the World Cup. Sepguilherme (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs cleaning up, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cleaning is all it needs, and there are many records that are less notable that are worth keeping too, IMO. Not all points need to be a massive statement. Radlrb (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment How many "keeps" are needed before this AFD is closed? If consensus hasn't been reached here yet, there's no such thing as consensus anywhere. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No idea. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smartyllama, Place Clichy, Radlrb, GiantSnowman etc 172.254.96.122 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep why not reform this article? Biel1000 15:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC -3)
 * Keep Not every line on every Wikipedia page has to be of interest to every Wikipedia user. There is nothing here that would be anywhere near the level of "most goals by an Eastern European team on a rainy Thursday evening".  All the current content is justifiable.  I would be more concerned about the lack of sources if people seemed to be making inaccurate edits, but they don't seem to be.  Pete Ridges (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was merged with another large one about "National Team Appearances" fairly recently, which no doubt contributed to the messiness. Most of the removals since then make sense and there's only a handful of tables that could stand to be put back, without being essential. 123.136.50.134 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This original article had duplicate info. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep notable information properly sourced, maybe only cut a few more straneous stats - and splitting National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup again to get better room for those massive tables between "Tournament summary" and "Team statistics"? igordebraga ≠ 01:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Article just needs cleaning up, deleting it is not the right solution.Garfieldt (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep article needs cleanup not deleting.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:23, 21 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.