Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football club attendances (2006)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 consensus that the "indiscriminate" bit in STATS applies here, that there is no rationale (or rational principle) behind this collecting of information. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Football club attendances (2006)

edit
Football club attendances (2006) (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)

PROD contested by ‎Arxiloxos (talk · contribs), who said "needs discussion, deletion not uncontroversial, these articles have been here for years and we have many other articles about sports attendance" - to ciounter that I say longevity does not mean notability, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My original conern, namely that these articles are a huge violation of WP:NOTSTATS and have no encyclopedic worth, remains valid.

I am also nominating the following articles, for the exact same reason:

GiantSnowman 15:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is exactly the kind of reference information that people expect to find in a sports encyclopedia. We have many other similar articles, see Category:Sports attendance. WP:NOTSTATS warns against "long and sprawling lists of statistics" but also endorses the use of "tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". If there is something specifically wrong with these "football club attendances" articles, that should be identified. Otherwise I can't see any reason to remove this kind of encyclopedic information. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "specifically wrong" with the articles is that they take six or seven completely different sports and lump them together, ignoring all other sports, on the seemingly spurious grounds that each is known to some people as "football"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidently a number of editors agree with you that comparison of different football codes is inappropriate, but I don't think that's obvious: after all, our article about football discusses these sports together and we have an overarching Category:football covering them all as well. Examples of comparisons of attendance across football codes include [1][2][3][4][5][6]. If sources like these see the value in comparing attendance in the various kinds of "football", I don't see the objection to similar comparisons here. In any event, I do think it should be noted that there is no consensus supporting the broader claim that was the basis for this AfD, and for the preceding prod, that attendance lists are barred by WP:NOTSTATS. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far I've only read numbers 4 and 5, but I notice that they also include in their comparisons netball, motor racing, tennis, cricket, etc etc, so are comparisons across all sports, not just the various types of "football"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:LISTCRUFT. Intention of the list appears to be to combine attendances from different sports that are known as "football", whether that means Rugby football, American football, soccer or Aussie Rules. Lists of attendances for all sports or one sport would be encyclopedic, picking out some sports is listcruft. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1) This is not a sports encyclopaedia or a stats book. 2) there is no real reason to use the remit of the current page, either include all sports or limit it to association football but the current amalgamation of association football, NFL, Rugby Union (and others) is plain daft. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really don't see the encyclopedic value in comparing attendances across a small number of different sports, as Jmorrison says above, either compare across all sports or don't compare at all. Beyond the fact that these sports technically had a common ancestor over 150 years ago, there really isn't anything comparable about them. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruft, but worse, using Wikipedia as a reliable source for referencing English clubs' attendances is pure madness. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTSTATS is a style guideline which suggests we avoid adding huge tables of stats to articles, making them unreadable. It is not applicable here because the tables on these pages are quite tight, legible and comprehensible - a commendable example of summary style. The other hostile shortcuts such as WP:LISTCRUFT are not policies and are instead just personal opinions equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. The general topic of attendances is notable being covered in detail by sources such as The Economics of Association Football; The Economics of Professional Team Sports; The Economics of Football. These seem to be sources of good quality, being published by the Cambridge University Press, for example, and contain graphs and statistics, as one would expect for works of economics. Covering such sports across different codes makes sense to provide a wide perspective per WP:GLOBALIZE. Warden (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, pick any random one of these, and there's no reliable sourcing at all. Similarly there's no definition here of what makes this notable. Can you show me where this kind of article is genuinely notable outside of lists of attendances? The actual answer is that this is trivia and belongs in a sports almanack, not a global encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FIVEPILLARS states that Wikipedia has the features of an almanac. I have provided multiple sources which discuss attendance figures in both a general and statistical way, as part of an economic analysis of these sports. This demonstrates notability per WP:LISTN. This information seems less trivial than much of the sports coverage in Wikipedia, such as the numerous stubby BLPs. These statistics represent the gates of the major clubs in the world and so summarise the activity of millions of supporters and the performance of these top clubs in the marketplace. As such, these pages are comparable with record of mass attendance such as List of the busiest airports in Europe or Category:Lists of highest-grossing films. Warden (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, such comparisons and precedents are valid, "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." So, for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films where an attempt was made to delete what is now a featured list. Why is attendance at sports fixtures less important than attendance at cinemas? It makes no sense. Warden (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those works refer to attendances within association football (soccer) only, or to attendances across all sports. These lists subjectively pick out a group of sports that only have in common that they are known as "football". This violates WP:LSC (which is a guideline). "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective [my emphasis] or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or even a sports encyclopaedia. It is a general encyclopaedia that brings together noteworthy information for a lay audience. Lists of attendances at sporting events are not germane to that remit. – PeeJay 20:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep documented, sourced lists that belong together. Needs edited for style and possibly content. Sources could be better, but those are all surmountable problems that don't affect Notability. Even if the sources given would be considered not reliable, there is no doubt that sources that meet WP:RS can be found and added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what is exactly the similarity between soccer, american football, rugby, australian football and canadian football except that they share the word "football"? And what reliable sources discuss this as a group (it is a list, so WP:LISTN would be the correct guideline)? I would agree that lists like these would be notable if they grouped all sports, or limited to individual sports, but I can't see how the sports that share the name "football" is worth to compare. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I start browsing for sources and immediately find a stack of articles here:
  1. List of stadiums by capacity
  2. List of association football stadiums by capacity
  3. Average attendances of European football clubs
  4. Record home attendances of English football clubs
Are these listcruft too? Or are lists only crufty when they involve sports other than soccer? And what about the massive category:English football club statistics? Do these all violate WP:NOTSTATS too? Is there any consistency here? Warden (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows, other stuff exists yet again. Feel free to AFD them all. You know you can do that. What do you want from this? Where is your golden line on stats? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a general position here - that's why I am looking around and asking questions. But if this list is deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTSTATS then it seems that a large number of sports stats and lists ought to go too. I might well start some AFDs for them myself but there's no rush. Warden (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the list in question to many of those other ones because it has a wider scope. I am not a devotee of any particular sport and so am more interested in the economic and sociological aspects, in which the variation of the sports' rules is unimportant. Manchester United and Tampa Bay Buccaneers are owned by the same businessman and so, from a business point of view, this makes them comparable. Warden (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another editor has picked up the gauntlet and so we now have:
  1. AFD for List of Major League Baseball attendance figures
  2. AFD for List of National Football League attendance figures
  3. AFD for List of National Hockey League attendance figures
Warden (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT per Jmorrison. I agree with TRM too. The use of WP as a reference for these articles is madness....William 18:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per Jmorrison, Spudgfsh. There are a number of other problems with all of these lists. What is the value of comparing attendances of these particular sports? Why are we looking at one year when many sports have seasons that cross two years (American football, association football in Europe etc). How do we know these lists are comprehensive without a RS? Having attendances for within a competition, or even a sport may have some value, but this doesn't. The lead doesn't explain why this list has value – that says a lot really. - Shudde talk 06:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the references section is a joke. --MicroX (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most delete rationales are variants of "I don't like it": "I don't see value", "Cruft", yadda yadda. That me, you or other people can't "see value" doesn't mean it has none -you are trying to prove a negative. That said, entries of the tables are almost surely sourceable, and that they currently have little sourcing is not a reason to delete: if they were unsourceable at all, then it would be different. Warden correctly noted this is a germane almanac-like entry. --cyclopiaspeak! 00:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I cannot see where this has been listed elsewhere before, compiling such a comparison has hints of WP:OR about it. How can July–June seasons be compared with January–December seasons? Why is the list using Wikipedia as a reference for European crowd figures? Why is there no "Total Attendance" field? Surely whatever purpose these lists serve can be fulfilled by List of sports attendance figures, although whether that itself should be on Wikipedia is also for discussion, elsewhere. C679 11:40, 17 September 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Football_club_attendances_(2006)&oldid=1137854252"