Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Arguments of WP:SYNTH in the AfD mentioned in the nomination are moot, as this article does not use the information to form a new conclusion, it is simply an at-a-glance record of every club that has entered the Champions League. Sourcing is lacking, but it does exist and it will just take a bit of effort to put them all in. As the source I added for Manchester United shows, a year-by-year record of how each team does in the competition already exists, this article just puts them all together in one place so people can compare. Also, I am a professional football statistician and I have found this article (and the Europa League one) extremely useful in the last few years. – PeeJay 14:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this kind of articles are useful and should continue to be on Wikipedia--Baronedimare (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment From what I see article violates MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, fails WP:GNG and also appears to be WP:OR. Saying that, I also feel this article title is completely miss-labelled. As it's not truly a comparison article. On all of that I would say at current Delete WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOSTATS 3: Only statistics without context or explanation, this page has context. MOS:COLOR, many pages use the method used in this article eg. 2020 Formula One World Championship. ~Styyx   Hi! ^-^  16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Govvy, please justify your view that this violates MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, WP:GNG and WP:OR. All of which seem clearly untrue to me, but without you outlining your concern it is difficult to rebuff Jopal22 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't see GNG much a problem now, however, the font size and colourisation are clearly issues with the visually impaired readers, I don't know why you can't see that. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply I disagree font size and colourisation are clearly issues. The color is not the only method used to convey important information, and you can read the table without using color. This is in line with MOS:COLOR. In any case font size and color are not justifications for deletion as this discussion is about, that is a separate discussion about improving the page. Does this mean you withdraw the deletion proposal? Jopal22 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Question What are you talking about, I am colour blind and I need to put the text size to ctrl+3, it completely fails MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS. Also, the table goes way out of proportion when I have to increase the size. Govvy (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply But you don't need to know the colours to know what the table is showing. e.g. You can tell Barcelona won the Champions League in 05-06 because there is a "C" in the cell, and alternatively because the cell is dark green. Or are you suggesting the dark green colour makes the "C" unreadable? Either way WP:ACCESS issues are not a reason for deletion. Jopal22 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are on about, there is just a dark colour cell for Barcelona. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. Okay! Well it sounds like we just have to do a WP:ACCESS improvement of the article, which I am sure people will be happy to do? Below is the table key, with an extra column with colour removed. Let us know what colours work, and what doesn't and we can fix it Jopal22 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I see Runner Up all the way down fine, there is a C in the top it seems I can't see... o well... :/ Anyway, this is an AfD, these things should be done on a talk page somewhere else. We are getting off-topic here. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it's not a reason for deletion, but you brought it up as a reason, so I responded to try and reach some consensus. You have reeled off a lot of Wikipedia policy, without fleshing out the issue, and when you do all of which has bee rebuffed or is n/a. I am at a loss to know what your issue still is, and it seems you simply don't like the pages and are finding a reason to delete, rather than having a genuine complaint. It's quite tiresome to converse in such a way Jopal22 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:
 * WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.
 * MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.
 * WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.
 * WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.
 * WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also 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 (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics.
 * Jopal22 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. In line with the decision at Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison this is OR and SYNTH, unless these charts can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party.  Also wouldn't it be hard to verify this without re-creating the entire chart?  How would I check this?  Also this is has 67 links to a single website, 67 of which land on a 404 msg, and all of which contain curious-looking "referrer=" syntax in the URL, so it is unsourced as well.  (For links to six more of these see this discussion)  --Lockley (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel like this is a useful article for comparisons and perhaps just needs more adequate sourcing provided. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2020 (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.