The result was Userify. There was agreement that the article should be removed from mainspace, but consensus formed around making selections from the article available to Teratix ( talk · contribs) for incorporation into his analytics article. I have moved the article to User:Teratix/AFL_Tables, please drop a line on my talk page when you wish it to be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex ( talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was Userify. There was agreement that the article should be removed from mainspace, but consensus formed around making selections from the article available to Teratix ( talk · contribs) for incorporation into his analytics article. I have moved the article to User:Teratix/AFL_Tables, please drop a line on my talk page when you wish it to be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex ( talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)