Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Much like a previous AfD, this also fails as per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. See LISTCRUFT points 1, 6, 10, 11, 12 amongst other points. Spiderone 20:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The idea that a list has to be "notable" is fairly silly, given what Wikipedia has become. Why force people to check 50 pages when someone compiled the info. in one place? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - as NOTSTATS/LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 11:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - there do not appear to be multiple sources tracking and ranking the leagues in this way. Eldumpo (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like a little more discussion on this. In principle, a list of most attended sports games/events/competitions or an article on the biggest attended events is of interest and is something that independent reliable sources are interested in. Equally, only one of those is really a list like this one - that is, the research from sporting intelligence. These sources just express an interest in the topic of most attended leagues. Clearly, this article as it stands is a mess and the list is prone to twisting in order for someone to list their favourite sport. While writing this I have begun to lean towards a weak keep with this article on the grounds that sources suggest that either this or a topic that this is getting close towards being is notable, though I could be argued back - I'd like to hear more from the nominator and/or those who've voted to delete as to their reasoning. I think that we need to look carefully at this article, alongside List of sports attendance figures, with a view to mergers/renamings/better defined splits as appropriate. I suppose that this can be summarized as an 'improve don't delete' argument which is one that often frustrates me but in this instance I think may be appropriate. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, it does appear that a number of reliable sources may be tracking league attendances, although I would question what their references are, and we need to be clear they are not being taken from Wikipedia. However, if we are content with their sources I would suggest we delete this article, and add the above sources to List of sports attendance figures, with that list being significantly reduced to only include leagues being tracked by the references. Eldumpo (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Unfortunately I did not see the previous AFD. As Super Nintendo Chalmers very correctly points out, that it is something that the media covers making it notable. And being that the numbers are in context and not just a spewing of stats it does not fail NOTSTATS. This is a perfectly acceptable list article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2016 (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.