Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday Night Football all-time team standings


 * 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. Does it violate WP:NOT? Does WP:TRIVIA apply. No clear consensus amongst editors on these subjective questions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Monday Night Football all-time team standings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTSTATS Tvx1 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly it needs sourcing, but sources are readily available in a very large amount of third party media sources. Passes WP:GNG easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly violates WP:NOT. I agree it can be easily sourced, but this is not a topic for an encyclopedia. Prevan (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (P.S. Go Hawks. We're no. 1.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It's more than just statistics and certainly can be expanded with commentary. That's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Here is the apparently applicable portion of WP:NOTSTATS: "Excessive listings of statistics. Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context. Long recitations of statistics reduce readability and may be confusing. Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012) consider placing them in tables to enhance readability; where large quantities are not appropriate (e.g. the main article United States presidential election, 2012) omit excess statistics and summarize." Readability is not reduced and the article is not confusing. Perhaps there could be more explanatory text, but the solution to that is to write more text, not to delete the article. Furthermore, as recommended, the stats are contained in a well-organized table. Upon examination of the policy given as grounds for deletion, I find that the actual policy itself does not support deletion in this instance. Lepricavark (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why strong keep? What's so important about football games played on monday that we should keep a stats page dedicated to it?Tvx1 09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep because, as I clearly demonstrated above, the reason given for deletion is a misapplication of policy. Lepricavark (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Does not violate NOT, no convincing reason for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Can you give any convincing reason (and by that I mean policy and guideline based) reason what is so important about football games played on monday that we should keep a stats page dedicated to it? Tvx1 09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is not just on games played on Monday at night, but of games played on the show Monday Night Football.  The significance comes from the games all being played on a show that has been broadcast in television's prime time slot since 1970 and has become #4 on the List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series.  It is now broadcast in the US, Canada, Australia, and many other countries.  Because of this widespread viewing, it has developed a significant viewer base an a huge amount of third party coverage in reliable sources: ESPN and USA Today just as a very small starting sample.  Because of this large amount of coverage in the news, we find that it passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Monday Night Football passes GNG and that's why have an article on that which is of course not considered for deletion. What you have failed to prove (or indeed even adress) is that "the all-time team standings of football matches shown during that program" is a notable topic in itself, thus passing the GNG idependetely, meriting a dedicated article. Tvx1 16:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The onus is not on us to show that the subject is notable. You proposed the article for deletion; the onus is on you to provide a policy-based rationale for why it should be deleted. You have failed to do so. Lepricavark (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is if you use that as an argument in favor of keeping. Just posting a keep !vote without leaving a justified reasoning is meaningless. Such votes will likely be ignored by the reviewers. They review the strength of argument. The arguments for both sides. Not only those in favor of deleting. Tvx1 17:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a very justified reason for !voting keep. I was able to demonstrate that WP:NOTSTATS does not apply to this article. I did not merely post a keep !vote without leaving a justified reason. Furthermore, if you cannot provide a valid reason for the article to be deleted, then that is definitely an argument in favor of keeping it. Lastly – and stop trying to ignore me when I point your inconsistency out — shouldn't you stop talking out both sides of your mouth and let whoever closes this discussion arrive at his/her own conclusions? Lepricavark (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more thing. If you must leave pompous, sanctimonious edit summaries like this one, then it would be helpful if you would explain how the policies you are citing apply to the specific case. Because for someone who feels competent to school others in Wikipedia policy, you have a tendency to misapply policies and then, when this is pointed out to you, insist that you are still right because the other person didn't demonstrate notability. If you can't prove a lack of notability, then these discussions shouldn't even be happening. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a novel addition to Wikipedia. Monday Night Football games are distinct from other games, as they are nationally televised. These games tend to match two very worthy adversaries, emphasizing the significance of these games as opposed to average games. Teams also have to deal with the pressure of having shorter weeks (games are typically played on Sundays), also makes the stakes of these games even higher, as teams have one less day to prepare for their next game. There's plenty of media about Monday Night Football. At the same time, if this page is deleted, I think adding this page's content to the Monday Night Football page would be suitable. WikiGuy1980 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sunday and Thursday games aren't nationally televised? That's news to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this not an AFD for Monday Night Football. Tvx1 07:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Finite dataset displayed in a intuitive table is obviously not "Excessive listings of statistics". Standalone article is preferable to a section within the main article. Adhere to WP:BLUDGEON, please. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTSTATS. The article is pure trivia, nothing more. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  01:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It has already been demonstrated that NOTSTATS does not apply to this article. Furthermore, WP:TRIVIA states right at the outset that it is targeted at "lists of miscellaneous information." That does not apply to this article, in which the information is all tied to a common theme. Could you please elaborate on why you believe NOTSTATS and TRIVIA are relevant to this discussion? Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have to engage everyone who suggests deletion (and neither really should I do with those in favor of keeping). Please just respect the AFD process and let the discussion run its course. Tvx1 07:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Encourage full discussions please. There is no crime in responding to posted comments. Further, the response to WP:TRIVIA is new and called for--to which I add the arguments at WP:DISCRIMINATE to help provide background to the scene.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the first time in this AfD that I have engaged a delete !vote. As far as I can tell, you have not yet addressed once my observations about how the policies/guidelines in question do not apply. Rather than telling me to be quiet, why don't you offer a counterargument? Lepricavark (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just your opinion that they don't apply. I don't agree with it. Tvx1 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you think that this is a list of miscellaneous information? What, may I ask, is miscellaneous about it? And how is the listing of statistics excessive? Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, being unsourced and indiscriminate collection of information. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * response the list is most certainly a WP:DISCRIMINATE list. Were you referring to another section of WP:LISTCRUFT?  As for the addition of sources, that is simply an editing issue and not one of deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is the very image of WP:NOTSTATS.  I'm unpersuaded by Lepricavark's assertion that WP:NOTSTATS is inapplicable to these particular statistics; they are not contextualized at all, and the article is titled for the standings, not the competition.  FalconK (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Addition I've added a brief commentary at the beginning. It can clearly be expanded to enhance the list article to meet any requirement of WP:NOTSTATS "Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context." --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 5 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.