Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League career interceptions leaders


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)  Frank  Anchor  14:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

List of National Football League career interceptions leaders

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. No sources talking about this list - article sourced to exactly one database.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete no reason to have a page that just repeats what is found on another website.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what every article does – include information from other sources? Otherwise all articles would be just made up. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I might not be clear--every article is supposed to include information from other sources as you say, but it is from multiple sources. If the wikipedia article just repeats what another single page has, then it is just redundant.  But it looks like consensus will swing the other way on this one.  I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can perhaps see a reason to get rid of the most consecutive pro bowls to start a career, but the interception leaders? That's a major statistic and the record has received coverage, for example   . BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Only one of those citations actually talks about a list of people (unless I'm missing something). Simply having sources say someone has the most of something doesn't meet LISTN.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep INT's are a major statistic as BeanieFan11 said. I see no reason at all for this list to not exist, especially with other lists with other similar stats existing.-- Yankees10 23:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep useful list that should be kept. TheManInTheBlackHat   (Talk)  00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Echoing BeanieFan11 and Yankees10. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course, a major stat as is the other major page inexplicably nominated, List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a major stat as others have mentioned. It's one of the two most notable statistics for a defensive player (the other being sacks). There is definite WP:SIGCOV and notability here. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beanie and Josh. Further, and per Five pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes many features of general and specialized almanacs and gazetteers. Interceptions are one of the two most notable (arguably the top) defensive stat in the sport. A list of the all-time leaders in this important stat furthers Wikipedia´s mission as an almanac and gazeteer. Cbl62 (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional sources covering leadership in the statistic: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The most important statistic for cornerbacks and safeties, has substantial coverage as established above.--Newtothisedit (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability is based on all available sources, not just those currently in the article. And interception leaders is a major statistical category with plenty of sources if anyone bothers to look. Rlendog (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2023 (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.