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. There is some dispute as to the relative notability of some of the bundled pages, but the overall consensus here is that all of these pages rather unsalvageably end up being
original research in the form of synthesis of published material, and as such are considered to veer too far into the area of an almanac of sports statistics, rather than an encyclopedia. ~
mazcatalk19:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
As per consensus established in
this AfD. The concerns around
WP:LISTN persist with all of these articles. There are issues with
WP:NOTSTATS as well and we need to be more than simply a mirror of
RSSSF and
IFFHS.
Keep. Again, I can't speak for all national teams, but in the UK the national team caps record is a notable subject. For example,
Steven Davis broke the longstanding Northern Ireland record this week (previously held by
Pat Jennings) and this was widely covered
[1][2][3][
[4]. There hasn't been much recent coverage of the England or Scotland records because nobody has got near those records in recent times, but
WP:NTEMP applies to that.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
14:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)reply
STRONG DELETE ALL I don't the point of procedural keep, these tables ARE complete
WP:SYNTH. Whats the point in merging these stats to saturate other articles with more statistics. It's just incredibly infuriating in the way these articles have been constructed, it's just showing information in a really bad design with no thought.
Govvy (
talk)
16:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I fully agree with the nominator's points. I also think that some of the content of these article is tending towards trivia.
Dunarc (
talk)
22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Clearly leaning delete, but relisting given that there has been no real discussion about why the merge target is not appropriate as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I would be happy for merge with all except for the Latvia one. The Latvia one is unsourced and, for all we know, the info might not be correct. I think it would be more sensible to remove it unless someone can go through all of Latvia's match records and synthesise a list for them using those match reports.
Spiderone11:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree with Govvy actually. We shouldn't be keeping or merging content that's basically synthesised original research. That's not what Wikipedia is about at all
Spiderone18:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
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. There is some dispute as to the relative notability of some of the bundled pages, but the overall consensus here is that all of these pages rather unsalvageably end up being
original research in the form of synthesis of published material, and as such are considered to veer too far into the area of an almanac of sports statistics, rather than an encyclopedia. ~
mazcatalk19:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
As per consensus established in
this AfD. The concerns around
WP:LISTN persist with all of these articles. There are issues with
WP:NOTSTATS as well and we need to be more than simply a mirror of
RSSSF and
IFFHS.
Keep. Again, I can't speak for all national teams, but in the UK the national team caps record is a notable subject. For example,
Steven Davis broke the longstanding Northern Ireland record this week (previously held by
Pat Jennings) and this was widely covered
[1][2][3][
[4]. There hasn't been much recent coverage of the England or Scotland records because nobody has got near those records in recent times, but
WP:NTEMP applies to that.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
14:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)reply
STRONG DELETE ALL I don't the point of procedural keep, these tables ARE complete
WP:SYNTH. Whats the point in merging these stats to saturate other articles with more statistics. It's just incredibly infuriating in the way these articles have been constructed, it's just showing information in a really bad design with no thought.
Govvy (
talk)
16:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I fully agree with the nominator's points. I also think that some of the content of these article is tending towards trivia.
Dunarc (
talk)
22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Clearly leaning delete, but relisting given that there has been no real discussion about why the merge target is not appropriate as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I would be happy for merge with all except for the Latvia one. The Latvia one is unsourced and, for all we know, the info might not be correct. I think it would be more sensible to remove it unless someone can go through all of Latvia's match records and synthesise a list for them using those match reports.
Spiderone11:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree with Govvy actually. We shouldn't be keeping or merging content that's basically synthesised original research. That's not what Wikipedia is about at all
Spiderone18:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
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.