Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National team appearances in the UEFA Women's Championship


 * 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   delete. J04n(talk page) 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

National team appearances in the UEFA Women's Championship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Article consists entirely of sports statistics. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed article for deletion is simply a mirror to National team appearances in the UEFA European Football Championship. While I understand that Wikipedia is not a sport almanac, statistics pages for well-established, highly prestigious competitions like these are common. I am okay with deleting the proposed article IF AND ONLY IF equal treatment is given to similar articles (e.g. the men's EURO page linked already, National team appearances in the FIFA Women's World Cup, National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, etc.) CyMoahk (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I should've said explicitly: my vote is to keep, unless similar articles are also deleted. CyMoahk (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, to address something: I think this article was identified because, at the time, it had only one article linking to it (the main article for the competition). While I haven't checked through every article in the "what links here" for the three other competitions I referenced above, I'm fairly certain that the only reason they have so many articles linking to them is that they appear in the templates for their respective competitions, something I didn't do when I first created the nominated article.  I don't know if that affects the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out. CyMoahk (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. No reasons for deletion. Keep all. Othervise delete all. NickSt (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Gosh I hate saying this, but Wiki doesn't do: "If A,B,C; Then X,Y,Z".  We gave up on Basic programming long ago.  Though it seems a wonderful argument to hold that "if we have this, then we have to have that...and if we don't have this, then we need to delete all that"...but it just doesn't hold water in a true conversation.  You gotta pick your fights one-by-one or find another approach.  Let the landslide of disagreement begin...   Barada   wha?  [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]] 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and the fact that this subject has not been covered in any significant detail by reliable, third-party publications. I suggest some of the keepers read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Snowman. This pretty clearly falls under WP:NOTSTATS. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - the page is just stats and boxes of colour, which is as clear a violation of WP:NOTSTATS as you can get. C 679 07:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as clear Stat Attack. Besides, isn't all this information available in other articles and has just been combined here in a series of tables, the selection of whch seems to be entirely arbitrary and therefore unencyclopaedic. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2013 (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.