- 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. Fenix down ( talk) 07:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Progression of Saarland association football caps record ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability concerns - doesn't appear to meet WP:LISTN. Only source is RSSSF. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - there are many similar articles, all sourced to RSSSF or similar (e.g. Progression of Latvia association football goalscoring record, Progression of the Netherlands association football goalscoring record, Progression of England association football caps record). Depending on how this AfD goes, it might be worth discussing some of these. Spiderone 07:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - given the short-lived nature of the national team, this is not needed as a separate article. Giant Snowman 10:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I don't get it, regardless of notability, whats the article suppose to be about? Whats the point of it? Govvy ( talk) 11:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It shows, throughout history, who has held the record for most caps for Saarland at any given time. The challenge is to prove how this meets our notability criteria as I'm not aware of any significant coverage of this topic anywhere. Spiderone 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of coverage in secondary sources indicates that this doesn't have the notability required for a stand-alone list Spiderone 08:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I find the subject matter very lacking and odd outside of normal statistics pages. I feel that we should nominated all the other articles that pertain too Progression of national team etc to be put forward to AfD also. Govvy ( talk) 09:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, it actually borders on WP:SYNTH as well. Geschichte ( talk) 12:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - just uninteresting stats. The whole concept of a "progression" of this "record" seems very obscure to me. Nigej ( talk) 07:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as long we have other such articles such as Progression of England association football caps record. Deleting this one would be just an instance of the systemic bias. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 21:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally seen as a great reason to keep an article; I plan to nominate the England article for deletion after this one concludes anyway
Spiderone
21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."
Ludost Mlačani (
talk)
07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please can you explain how this article passes
WP:LISTN or
WP:GNG? For the record, I think the England one fails LISTN as well so your only argument for notability of this article is resting on other articles that also fail LISTN
Spiderone
07:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not saying it passes anything, I am saying we need a centralised debate as we clearly have a limited set of subjects, for which we need a general rule.
Ludost Mlačani (
talk)
17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that's not way the English Wikipedia works. Because of the completely stupid WP:GNG concept, it's quite easy to end up deleting something like the current article while keeping something like Progression of England association football caps record. Nigej ( talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not saying it passes anything, I am saying we need a centralised debate as we clearly have a limited set of subjects, for which we need a general rule.
Ludost Mlačani (
talk)
17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please can you explain how this article passes
WP:LISTN or
WP:GNG? For the record, I think the England one fails LISTN as well so your only argument for notability of this article is resting on other articles that also fail LISTN
Spiderone
07:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."
Ludost Mlačani (
talk)
07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will be nominating the England one after this discussion. It depends on the consensus established here. If this one gains a consensus of 'keep' then there would be absolutely no point in putting the England one up for AfD. Spiderone 18:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally seen as a great reason to keep an article; I plan to nominate the England article for deletion after this one concludes anyway
Spiderone
21:33, 8 October 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.
- 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. Fenix down ( talk) 07:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Progression of Saarland association football caps record ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability concerns - doesn't appear to meet WP:LISTN. Only source is RSSSF. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - there are many similar articles, all sourced to RSSSF or similar (e.g. Progression of Latvia association football goalscoring record, Progression of the Netherlands association football goalscoring record, Progression of England association football caps record). Depending on how this AfD goes, it might be worth discussing some of these. Spiderone 07:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - given the short-lived nature of the national team, this is not needed as a separate article. Giant Snowman 10:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I don't get it, regardless of notability, whats the article suppose to be about? Whats the point of it? Govvy ( talk) 11:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It shows, throughout history, who has held the record for most caps for Saarland at any given time. The challenge is to prove how this meets our notability criteria as I'm not aware of any significant coverage of this topic anywhere. Spiderone 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of coverage in secondary sources indicates that this doesn't have the notability required for a stand-alone list Spiderone 08:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I find the subject matter very lacking and odd outside of normal statistics pages. I feel that we should nominated all the other articles that pertain too Progression of national team etc to be put forward to AfD also. Govvy ( talk) 09:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, it actually borders on WP:SYNTH as well. Geschichte ( talk) 12:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - just uninteresting stats. The whole concept of a "progression" of this "record" seems very obscure to me. Nigej ( talk) 07:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as long we have other such articles such as Progression of England association football caps record. Deleting this one would be just an instance of the systemic bias. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 21:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally seen as a great reason to keep an article; I plan to nominate the England article for deletion after this one concludes anyway
Spiderone
21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."
Ludost Mlačani (
talk)
07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please can you explain how this article passes
WP:LISTN or
WP:GNG? For the record, I think the England one fails LISTN as well so your only argument for notability of this article is resting on other articles that also fail LISTN
Spiderone
07:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not saying it passes anything, I am saying we need a centralised debate as we clearly have a limited set of subjects, for which we need a general rule.
Ludost Mlačani (
talk)
17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that's not way the English Wikipedia works. Because of the completely stupid WP:GNG concept, it's quite easy to end up deleting something like the current article while keeping something like Progression of England association football caps record. Nigej ( talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not saying it passes anything, I am saying we need a centralised debate as we clearly have a limited set of subjects, for which we need a general rule.
Ludost Mlačani (
talk)
17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please can you explain how this article passes
WP:LISTN or
WP:GNG? For the record, I think the England one fails LISTN as well so your only argument for notability of this article is resting on other articles that also fail LISTN
Spiderone
07:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."
Ludost Mlačani (
talk)
07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will be nominating the England one after this discussion. It depends on the consensus established here. If this one gains a consensus of 'keep' then there would be absolutely no point in putting the England one up for AfD. Spiderone 18:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally seen as a great reason to keep an article; I plan to nominate the England article for deletion after this one concludes anyway
Spiderone
21:33, 8 October 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.