Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Europa 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. Seems broad consensus to keep, the style of the page should probably be reviewed though. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Europa 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 Europa 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 for Manchester United I added to the Champions League article 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 Champions League one) extremely useful in the last few years. – PeeJay 14:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Even leaving aside the weird "humblebrag", this amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Maybe start your own blog and put this indiscriminate mass of zany coloured stats there? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a humblebrag. It's not even a brag. I'm telling you this table has been incredibly useful for my job. Your disparaging comments aside, would you care to actually bring anything constructive to the discussion? – PeeJay 23:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this kind of articles are useful and should continue to be on Wikipedia--Baronedimare (talk) 14:41, 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) 15:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Due to WP:NOTSTATS and the others mentioned by Govvy. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Accessibility issues are not a reason to delete. Also, it's not original research as all the info can be sourced. – PeeJay 13:15, 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) 15:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. In line with the decision at Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison manipulating sports data like this constitute OR and SYNTH, unless the charts themselves can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party.  How would I check any of this?  Also, despite claims above, this has zero sources.  (For links to six more of these see this discussion)  --Lockley (talk) 00:08, 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep purely on basis of consensus at a recent related AFD, Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, which was kept. GiantSnowman 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination appears to be made in bad-faith as a WP:POINTY nomination in retaliation for the (somewhat questionable) result - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it very concerning these keep votes, I am not sure the editors are truly reviewing the article under strict guidelines. WP:NOSTATS is a primary key concern, WP:OR can be an issue and this off-shoot from UEFA Cup and Europa League records and statistics. We already have all the information on the other page, so why on earth do we need all the same information in another format? Govvy (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The information is not all on that other page. You’re simply making things up to suit your agenda now. I’m embarrassed for you. – PeeJay 12:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely WP:OR. WP:OSE is not an valid reason to keep. Accessibility issues are huge here.  // Timothy ::  talk  15:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OSE may not be a valid reason to keep, but ACCESS is not a valid reason to delete. – PeeJay 19:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the article clearly needs cleaning up in relation to to accessibility and verifiability, but is probably a useful article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – in its present form, sourcing and access are definite issues, but I will have those sorted by Tuesday if someone else doesn't beat me to it. OR claim is a fallacy, each of these clubs has a seasonal performance summary at the UEFA website which the article simply collates into one page, and it's not SYNTH as there is no other claim made by the collation of the stats. This is a useful resource for the reader if presented in an acceptable format. Crowsus (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Crowsus, I would suggest we should follow a similar colour scheme that has already been established across wikipedia sports articles, and can been seen in Ronnie O'Sullivan, Phil Taylor career statistics, and Roger Federer career statistics Jopal22 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 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.