Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuroLeague 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 delete. Salvio 15:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EuroLeague clubs performance comparison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT: Entire page of unexplained stats tables. Comparable deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuroLeague Women clubs performance comparison.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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#Performance timelines.

Jopal22 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page fails a fundamental part of WP:NOTSTATS: ... articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.. There is no text here, just a massive table.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop Can we please wait until a consensus is reached here? Mainly because it is about a similar list and has more discussing going on. Also not everyone wants to discuss the same thing 7 times in a day. The nominator should've thought about this before nominating. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 09:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In line with the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison manipulating sports data like this obviously crosses the line into OR and SYNTH, unless the charts themselves can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party. How could I even verify the accuracy of these charts? That's a lot of homework. That makes the presented data sort of opaque to any critical analysis. Also, despite claims above about sources, no data within the chart is sourced at all. (Yes, there are six more of these -- see this discussion) --Lockley (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely WP:OR. The only reference is to a non-existent blog page. If WP is the source then WP:NOTSOURCE. WP:OSE is not an valid reason to keep.   // Timothy :: talk  15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails WP:GNG for having only one citation, Issues with WP:OR, WP:ACCESS with mini browsers and Accessibility browsers. It's weird to say that this is MOS:COLOR and ACCESS enabled when it clearly is not. WP:NOSTATS is a major concern with these type of articles. Govvy (talk) 19:19, 5 August 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.