Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time Serie A table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - if you need to merge/add something from this to Serie A, please send me a message. --JForget 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All-time Serie A table

All-time Serie A table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not satisfy WP:N and is WP:CRUFT along with WP:OR Davnel03 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Angelo 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Serie A.--Ahonc (Talk) 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete and only because (a) it's ripped off without credit being given to the person who tallied all this stuff up and (b) no effort to update this after 2005-06. How lazy do you gotta be to not adjust it when the '06-'07 season is over? The first part is worse. The list came from somewhere, and I'm pretty sure Speirdyke didn't tally this up himself. Several contributors, and not a single friggin' source. A lot of typing went into this, and maybe the table can be incorporated into a merger. Mandsford 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think its a great resource of information, and about the OR I really doubt that. There are all time tables out there that can be sourced. A quick google search gave me this, if you want more all time tables from the same source click here. Chandlertalk 02:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per all the delete votes above, and also noting the fact that it's built on a wrong assumption. By awarding two points for a win in all seasons, the table ignores the fact that the Serie A table has been calculated on the 3-points for a win principle since 1994. If this goes, all the other articles in the category should be vulnerable too, as the same policies would seem to apply. As for the rsssf link above found by User:Xhandler, well the rsssf is the best place for articles like this, not Wikipedia. - fchd 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per fchd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cleanup; split into 2 sections, those which had 2 points for a win, those which have 3 points for a win. --Howard the Duck 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - much too unwieldy to be Merged with Serie A. Wikipedia articles and lists do not exist to provide resources, they need to be notable and to prove notability. This isn't and doesn't, it's merely a raft of figures built on incorrect information (see the above comment about "2 points/3 points for a win"). It may be a statistician's dream, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public. Ref (chew)(do) 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Serie A - I don't understand the rationale for the nomination at all. All-time tables ("maratontabell" in Swedish) is a common and useful way of comparing current and former clubs who have participated in a certain league and add extra information to the topic (Serie A in this case). For example, I didn't know that Triestina was the 16th most successful club in the Serie A, or that Alessandria is more successful than Lecce. Why wouldn't this information be notable? Why would it be WP:CRUFT when we have articles about English level 10 football? I'm also pretty sure that information by reliable sources can be found, perhaps it's even gathered officially by the FA. Even if there are issues with sourcing and updating, these issues could be resolved and the article kept or merged. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - tables and lists are not strictly encyclopedic, and that's what Wikipedia content must be. If the Speedy/AfD system had been historically more diligent, there would be very few of these in Wikipedia at all, if any. Encyclopedias were developed to record details about subjects in a prosaic style, not in the form of figures and statistics designed as reference pieces. Yes, small tables and lists are sometimes valid within a written article, but not as standalone entries IMO. So, merge if you must try, or else delete. Ref (chew)(do) 12:08, 20 November 2007 (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.