Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Relisting this discussion didn't bring this any closer to a consensus so I'm going to close this now. I can only echo the words of Sandstein in closing the first AFD as applying to this as well:

Three-way split between keep, merge and delete, each with good arguments. I'd normally go for merge as a compromise, but here there are also valid arguments against a merger given the length of the target article.

Those editors who are interested in a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions
AfDs for this article:


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

This is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example, Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. The first AFD was closed as "No consensus" and right now, that looks how the 2nd AFD might close as well. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United Kingdom,  and England. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also the exact sort of information you used to buy specialty football encyclopedias for. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Liverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an absolutely valid WP:SPLIT. Most teams will list all of their European matches on their "X team in Europe" page, so deleting this would basically mean that the most followed clubs wouldn't be able to have information about the matches they've played. I don't support a merge, either - the parent article is almost 100Kb as it stands. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per Govvy. GiantSnowman 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. The proposed merge target is already long, already has a bunch of tables in it, and it's a FA. People who want this information can easily just click through to this article; it's not going to become some kind of weird content fork. There's no reason to merge this. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete and no not merge. The featured article Liverpool F.C. in international football covers this topic adequately and in an encyclopedic way, but a list of every match played ever is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As such, a merge would not improve the encylopedic value of that FA, but just bloat it with unencyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia, not a football fandom site. If this table is added to the FA article then it will leave that article at risk of not meeting the FA criteria by having a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not at all a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, every club has these and they're exactly what you'd find in the back of old footballing encyclopaedias. It makes no sense to delete this only because it's large enough to have its own page. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you think it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY? This isn't a directory. That would be if it emulated the yellow pages, or listed upcoming TV broadcasting, or something. These are historical events. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE, just because other articles violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTSTATS too, that does not mean this article should too. An entire list of hundreds of matches is a clear violation of these both, as it's entirely a stats article for every result which violates Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. We're not a database mirror or fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedic merit is self-evident, as I've mentioned before. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I was leaning towards delete, especially as I nominated this list for deletion the first time around. But after reading SportingFlyer's reasoning above I think this list should be kept. He's right, these statistics are what you'd find in the back of old football encyclopedias. Indeed, they're in the back of many of my Liverpool books. I don't think the list should be merged with the main article, as it will be far too big then. A separate list is a better solution. NapHit (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete ‘’Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory or repository of links’’ as per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Frankly, I don’t see the need to keep or merge a list of matches as it does not add anything valuable to Liverpool F.C. in international football. If a user was to check Category:English football clubs in international competitions, they would also find that no other club has any similar articles on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If a club has appeared in Europe, the list of their European matches exist somewhere, whether on the club page, the club in European football page, or in Liverpool's case, a validly split page dedicated to the topic. I don't understand how other users are coming to the logical fallacy that this is a directory. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Reply you should type into google is an encyclopaedia a database Wikipedia itself is certainly a database, where as the policy what wikipedia is not, saying it's not a database is really false to itself. Wikipedia at times is a joke in a way, I always wonder if it will last as it always asking for lots of donations! :/ Regardless and back to topic, there are millions of articles on wikipedia that are collective data. Regardless in cell form as numbers, matches of football, baseball, Ice hockey, NFL, it's full of it. You can't single this one out. Nope, you'd be deleting every page on wikipedia if you want to go that route. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a topic better suited for other sites to list such as a stats database, not wikipedia, as it does not provide readers with context for why matches played internationallly are important to this team specifically. Don't see anything worth merging or redirecting to either, and Liverpool F.C. in international football is already quite long as is. Let&#39;srun (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Every single team that has played in Europe has one of these tables somewhere. Liverpool's is just the one that's been WP:SPLIT. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't see how you can apply NOSTATS as a delete argument. The stats are explained in Liverpool F.C. in international football, therefore WP:NOSTATS is technically an invalid delete argument as clearly stated by the fact on NOSTATS it 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. So they are explained in the previous article. As for NOTDIRECTORY, that's kind of a grey area really, are you considering the list of matches a directory? The question it asks on that topic Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. Liverpool football club is certainly a notable topic, so is Liverpool football club in Europe, how about their games, there are many in the list that are highly notable. The main problem with the list is that each row needs a source. So again, how much thought did you put towards wanting to delete the article?? Regards Govvy (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to Liverpool F.C. in international football per Govvy. Ae245 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.