529:. This pattern is very familiar at WP:FOOTY - somebody invents a non-problem, than zealous editors in love with their third-level English club simply delete stuff from articles about clubs and leagues they regard as irrelevant, but when the time comes to apply the same criteria to their beloved leagues the "consensus" shifts and all of a sudden the stuff the same things that had been wholesale deleted a week ago is now allowed for English or Spanish clubs/players/leagues. So yeah, it IS a blatant case of WP:BIAS, evidenced by the attitude displayed in your sentence that "the only notable thing here" is whatever you (or 5 Englishmen) think it is. You say it's the job of the "community" to decide what is notable. Then why did you say that in the first place if you know better?
537:
form by any single media outlet. No, the newspapers in
Croatia do not have a habit of publishing this table in this form but they do often talk about how many seasons a certain club spent in top level, how many times they finished as runners-up or how many top level games they played. And yes, it IS a simple mathematical operation of adding numbers, numbers needed can be found in individual season articles, which all exist on Knowledge (XXG) and which are all referenced from reliable sources, so this is not OR. And Kosm1fent below should read point 3 of
655:, most of the sources for that article are offline, so I can't tell if the table was published in a similar format to the one found in the article or not. But that too is irrelevant – the reason that article is notable is because you can find copious references discussing who was the first, second, third, etc. goalkeeper to score in the NHL. Can you provide any references, in English or Croatian, that discuss this table (or sections of this table)? A few sources along the lines of "and with that win, <insert team: -->
571:. I'm not really sure how to respond to all the accusations of bias and so on because, to be frank, a lot of didn't make much sense. It seems blatantly obvious to me that leagues like the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga are going to have more coverage because they are simply bigger leagues. Again, they are not being deleted because significant coverage has been shown – the same can't be said for this table, though I would be happy for you to prove me wrong instead getting worked up about bias.
491:– it is impossible to see at the moment, but I have recently had about 25 or 30 articles that were in that category deleted (either via PROD or AfD), because I believe the arguments I outlined in the nom applied to all of them (I'll list them here if you like). The few that remain only do so because significant coverage in independent reliable sources has been provided, proving that they pass GNG. Regarding the specific AfD that you cite,
499:
notable thing in this table, what I meant was that the number of league titles in the Prva HNL is the only part of this table that I could find significant coverage for. I am always happy to see notable articles be kept and if you can provide significant coverage for this table, then I will be happy to agree to a merge as I did in the La Liga discussion and the
624:
and many many more. This table shows historic results of sports clubs (entities which are notable themselves) in a top level national competition (which is also notable itself). Each season tables have been published in copious sources and I fail to see how simply adding or substracting numbers for a
536:
table? Do daily newspapers publish lists of Man United appearances? It is a fucking statistics table, and exactly the sort of thing people expect to find in an encyclopedia. There are literally hundreds of tables on
Knowledge (XXG), many of them featured lists, which have never been published in that
520:
When I was talking about bias I was referring to all the half-hearted Delete votes this AfD is obviously going to get, illustrated perfectly by GiantSnowman's input. Yes, I know you woke up one day and decided that a few dozen tables need to be removed and you nominated al of them. I also know that
475:
Thanks for finding the RSSSF reference. As you can see in the nom, I was not concerned that it was OR, but that is was referenced to an unreliable source and I agree RSSSF is reliable, so that concern is allayed. However, the RSSSF reference is not "significant coverage", so I fail to see how the
498:
Regarding "Jenks24 you don't get to decide what is the 'only notable thing here' ", no, I am not the arbiter of notability, which is why we have AfDs – so we as a community can discuss our interpretations and find a consensus. By saying that how many league titles each team has won is the only
656:
moves to first (or third or 11th) on the all-time Prva HNL table" would be enough to show GNG, in my opinion. I have honestly looked for sources and been unable to find any, but you are obviously more knowledgable about this league, so if you could find some that would be great.
521:
most of them did get deleted because nobody simply fives a fuck about tables of leagues they do not follow, which is altogether a pattern often seen in anything football-related around here - of course the
Premier league or La Liga tables will NOT get deleted because
184:
195:. Another reason that it should not be merged is that it is sourced entirely to "Clas Glenning's website" (which looks like a fan source to me) and the only notable thing in the article, how many league titles each team has won, is already in
407:
may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles - in addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general
152:
573:
As to GNG, yes, I do find it relevant here, just like I find it relevant at every AfD. "Do daily newspapers publish lists of Man United appearances?" Not that I'm aware of, but many books do, hence the lists meets
486:
Regarding LISTCRUFT, I have never cited that essay in any of these all-time tables discussions. It is an interesting essay, but I agree it's not really relevant to this discussion. I am glad that you brought up
448:(Jenks24 you don't get to decide what is the "only notable thing here"). Unless something other than misinterpretations of policies and guidelines can be provided I see no reason to delete this. Cheers.
500:
423:
The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article.
495:, you will note that I nominated that article and NOTSTATS was one of the main reasons. In that discussion, I agreed that a merge would be acceptable because significant coverage was shown.
652:
621:
681:
492:
696:
Even though RSSSF is considered a reliable source, the fact that the table goes until the 2007-08 season, and, in order to update the table, you need to make quite a lot of calculations
146:
113:
620:
in the exact form as they appear on
Knowledge (XXG). Lists of heads of state, many lists of films, lists of buildings, lists of awards won by someone or something, lists of
216:
239:
470:
You might want to drop the confrontational attitude – they don't help the points you're trying to make. Anyway, I'll address your points in the order you made them:
647:
Well, I disagree that GNG is irrelevant. I didn't want to say it before when you kept mentioning other articles, but you seem to be persisting with this path, so:
421:
and each of the clubs are exactly that (standalone encyclopaedic topics, as defined by FOOTY's own guidelines). It also describes legitimate lists by saying that "
410:". I don't think this table reduces the readability of anything and I think the explanatory text is sufficient (although it sure could be expanded further).
86:
81:
90:
526:
472:
This not a case of bias. You will notice from the histories of the three articles you mention that I have PRODed each of them in the last week or so.
488:
430:
390:
dating from March 2009). Moreover, the table contains simple mathematical calculations which can easily be reproduced so it falls into the scope of
73:
286:
per nom, this kind of table serves no purpose and violates a number of our guidelines (NOTSTATS, OR, LISTCRUFT). Not even worth merging IMO.
352:
483:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the "excessive listings of statistics" – I still feel it is excessive while you don't.
167:
17:
134:
688:, but the La Liga one was saved from deletion because it had significant media coverage in third-party media sources, so it passed
267:
360:
52:
581:(a section of OR), but whether it's SYNTH or not doesn't really matter if it can't even be shown that the table passes GNG.
128:
417:
essay does not apply here either. That essay is about discouraging lists whose items are not standalone topics and both
735:
720:
666:
648:
642:
590:
562:
512:
465:
343:
322:
293:
277:
254:
231:
208:
55:
36:
434:
124:
334:
Pointless statistic overload - these stats don't really even mean anything. Fails guidelines as per GiantSnowman.
187:." The PROD was contested and replaced with a merge tag. I still think the article should be deleted as it is non-
77:
532:
Regarding the GNG argument - I don't see it as being applicable here. What exactly do you need to prove GNG for
734:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
387:
174:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
542:
441:
69:
61:
339:
437:
because "some kind of use of this table by the wider media". No LISTCRUFT or NOTSTATS arguments there, huh?
356:
290:
274:
414:
685:
538:
398:
192:
625:
cumulative table is somehow beyond our editing capabilities in the interest of this project. Regards.
634:
554:
457:
140:
49:
160:
303:
335:
578:
568:
391:
368:
662:
586:
508:
318:
287:
271:
250:
227:
204:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
445:
364:
709:
689:
425:" - and this is exactly what had happened with this list which started off as a section in
626:
546:
449:
705:
429:. And anyway, even if LISTCRUFT applied, it would automatically apply to ALL articles in
401:
cited by the nominator says that forbids "excessive listings of statistics", defined as "
185:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/All-time
English Football League 1st Division Table
714:
477:
188:
658:
582:
504:
314:
246:
223:
200:
107:
379:
383:
306:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
191:(no significant coverage in independent reliable sources) and a violation of
567:
Look, I don't really follow soccer, I'm not
English and I'm not a member of
541:
before citing it in deletion discussions. Sorry, but this still reeks of
426:
418:
196:
433:- and you yourself had agreed to keep the Spanish league version in its
183:
I PRODed this article with the rationale "Non-notable per precedent at
525:
editors from WP:FOOTY are biased, evidenced by the ongoing AfD of the
728:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
363:
versions I see no reason why this should get deleted apart from
682:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/All-time La Liga table
493:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/All-time La Liga table
653:
List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game
600:
I said it once but it seems I need to say it again - the
577:
Regarding OR, I think it could technically be considered
103:
99:
95:
159:
602:
WP:GNG argument is inapplicable to tables like these
313:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
270:'s list of association football-related deletions.
173:
351:. As long as there are similar articles about the
622:goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
738:). No further edits should be made to this page.
616:of tables, many of which are FLs, which have
378:RSSSF has the table up to the 2007-08 season
217:list of Football-related deletion discussions
8:
240:list of Croatia-related deletion discussions
238:Note: This debate has been included in the
215:Note: This debate has been included in the
237:
214:
704:(unlike what Timbouctou says), makes it
489:Category:All-time football league tables
431:Category:All-time football league tables
440:In conclusion, the nomination reeks of
386:(RSSSF is deemed a reliable source per
382:and another one listing final placings
266:: This discussion has been included in
403:long and sprawling lists of statistics
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
694:This table, however, does not.
1:
721:07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
667:21:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
643:17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
591:03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
563:13:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
513:16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
466:14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
344:01:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
323:23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
294:00:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
278:00:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
255:21:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
232:21:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
209:21:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
56:23:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
755:
731:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
680:. Pretty much like the
70:All-time Prva HNL table
62:All-time Prva HNL table
604:. There are literally
501:Allsvenskan discussion
371:famously suffers from.
702:be easily reproduced
618:never been published
268:WikiProject Football
435:deletion discussion
649:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
44:The result was
527:Argentine Primera
413:In addition, the
325:
280:
257:
243:
234:
220:
746:
733:
719:
639:
631:
559:
551:
462:
454:
312:
308:
262:
244:
221:
178:
177:
163:
111:
93:
34:
754:
753:
749:
748:
747:
745:
744:
743:
742:
736:deletion review
729:
713:
708:and thus fails
635:
627:
555:
547:
458:
450:
388:this discussion
301:
120:
84:
68:
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
752:
750:
741:
740:
724:
723:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
638:
630:
597:
596:
595:
594:
558:
550:
543:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
530:
518:
517:
516:
461:
453:
442:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
438:
411:
395:
373:
372:
346:
328:
327:
326:
310:
309:
298:
297:
296:
281:
259:
258:
235:
181:
180:
117:
64:
59:
50:Black Kite (t)
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
751:
739:
737:
732:
726:
725:
722:
718:
717:
711:
707:
703:
701:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
676:
675:
668:
664:
660:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
623:
619:
615:
614:
609:
608:
603:
599:
598:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
575:
570:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
535:
531:
528:
524:
519:
515:
514:
510:
506:
502:
496:
494:
490:
484:
481:
479:
473:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
404:
400:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
345:
341:
337:
336:Bretonbanquet
333:
330:
329:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
305:
300:
299:
295:
292:
289:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
241:
236:
233:
229:
225:
218:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
176:
172:
169:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
126:
123:
122:Find sources:
118:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
730:
727:
715:
699:
697:
693:
684:, both fail
677:
651:. Regarding
617:
612:
611:
606:
605:
601:
576:
572:
533:
522:
497:
485:
482:
474:
471:
422:
415:WP:LISTCRUFT
406:
402:
348:
331:
302:
283:
263:
182:
170:
164:
156:
149:
143:
137:
131:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
686:WP:NOTSTATS
539:WP:NOTSTATS
399:WP:NOTSTATS
193:WP:NOTSTATS
147:free images
629:Timbouctou
549:Timbouctou
452:Timbouctou
716:Kosm1fent
613:thousands
476:table is
405:" which "
607:hundreds
579:WP:SYNTH
569:WP:FOOTY
427:Prva HNL
419:Prva HNL
392:WP:NOTOR
369:WP:FOOTY
304:Relisted
197:Prva HNL
114:View log
659:Jenks24
610:if not
583:Jenks24
505:Jenks24
478:notable
446:WP:BIAS
365:WP:BIAS
361:English
357:Spanish
315:BusterD
291:Snowman
275:Snowman
247:Jenks24
224:Jenks24
201:Jenks24
189:notable
153:WP refs
141:scholar
87:protect
82:history
710:WP:GNG
700:cannot
690:WP:GNG
678:Delete
523:voting
408:reader
397:Also,
367:which
353:German
332:Delete
284:Delete
125:Google
91:delete
46:delete
706:WP:OR
698:that
288:Giant
272:Giant
168:JSTOR
129:books
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
663:talk
637:talk
587:talk
574:GNG.
557:talk
509:talk
460:talk
444:and
384:here
380:here
349:Keep
340:talk
319:talk
264:Note
251:talk
228:talk
205:talk
161:FENS
135:news
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
534:any
359:or
175:TWL
112:– (
53:(c)
712:.
692:.
665:)
641:)
589:)
561:)
545:.
511:)
503:.
464:)
355:,
342:)
321:)
253:)
242:.
230:)
219:.
207:)
199:.
155:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
48:.
661:(
633:(
585:(
553:(
507:(
480:.
456:(
394:.
338:(
317:(
249:(
245:—
226:(
222:—
203:(
179:)
171:·
165:·
157:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
132:·
127:(
119:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.