366:"Excessive listings of statistics. Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context. Long recitations of statistics reduce readability and may be confusing. Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012) consider placing them in tables to enhance readability; where large quantities are not appropriate (e.g. the main article United States presidential election, 2012) omit excess statistics and summarize."
614:, then it would be helpful if you would explain how the policies you are citing apply to the specific case. Because for someone who feels competent to school others in Knowledge policy, you have a tendency to misapply policies and then, when this is pointed out to you, insist that you are still right because the other person didn't demonstrate notability. If you can't prove a lack of notability, then these discussions shouldn't even be happening.
646:
of having shorter weeks (games are typically played on
Sundays), also makes the stakes of these games even higher, as teams have one less day to prepare for their next game. There's plenty of media about Monday Night Football. At the same time, if this page is deleted, I think adding this page's content to the Monday Night Football page would be suitable.
592:. I did not merely post a keep !vote without leaving a justified reason. Furthermore, if you cannot provide a valid reason for the article to be deleted, then that is definitely an argument in favor of keeping it. Lastly – and stop trying to ignore me when I point your inconsistency out — shouldn't you stop talking out both sides of your mouth and
645:
This is a novel addition to
Knowledge. Monday Night Football games are distinct from other games, as they are nationally televised. These games tend to match two very worthy adversaries, emphasizing the significance of these games as opposed to average games. Teams also have to deal with the pressure
368:
Readability is not reduced and the article is not confusing. Perhaps there could be more explanatory text, but the solution to that is to write more text, not to delete the article. Furthermore, as recommended, the stats are contained in a well-organized table. Upon examination of the policy given as
511:
which is of course not considered for deletion. What you have failed to prove (or indeed even adress) is that "the all-time team standings of football matches shown during that program" is a notable topic in itself, thus passing the GNG idependetely, meriting a dedicated article.
779:
states right at the outset that it is targeted at "lists of miscellaneous information." That does not apply to this article, in which the information is all tied to a common theme. Could you please elaborate on why you believe NOTSTATS and TRIVIA are relevant to this discussion?
563:
It is if you use that as an argument in favor of keeping. Just posting a keep !vote without leaving a justified reasoning is meaningless. Such votes will likely be ignored by the reviewers. They review the strength of argument. The arguments for
169:
481:. It is now broadcast in the US, Canada, Australia, and many other countries. Because of this widespread viewing, it has developed a significant viewer base an a huge amount of third party coverage in reliable sources:
544:
The onus is not on us to show that the subject is notable. You proposed the article for deletion; the onus is on you to provide a policy-based rationale for why it should be deleted. You have failed to do so.
95:
90:
444:
Why? Can you give any convincing reason (and by that I mean policy and guideline based) reason what is so important about football games played on monday that we should keep a stats page dedicated to it?
99:
163:
82:
798:
You don't have to engage everyone who suggests deletion (and neither really should I do with those in favor of keeping). Please just respect the AFD process and let the discussion run its course.
851:, you have not yet addressed once my observations about how the policies/guidelines in question do not apply. Rather than telling me to be quiet, why don't you offer a counterargument?
478:
239:
122:
129:
219:
486:
259:
184:
151:
1022:
1001:
964:
939:
906:
880:
860:
838:
809:
789:
766:
722:
693:
673:
655:
623:
605:
579:
554:
523:
502:
456:
439:
416:
394:
378:
350:
333:
316:
295:
271:
251:
231:
211:
64:
145:
758:
141:
86:
191:
1009:
I've added a brief commentary at the beginning. It can clearly be expanded to enhance the list article to meet any requirement of
78:
70:
341:
It's more than just statistics and certainly can be expanded with commentary. That's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--
17:
383:
Why strong keep? What's so important about football games played on monday that we should keep a stats page dedicated to it?
930:, being unsourced and indiscriminate collection of information. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
157:
282:
clearly it needs sourcing, but sources are readily available in a very large amount of third party media sources. Passes
709:"Excessive listings of statistics". Standalone article is preferable to a section within the main article. Adhere to
267:
247:
227:
489:
just as a very small starting sample. Because of this large amount of coverage in the news, we find that it passes
876:
805:
689:
575:
519:
452:
407:
Strong keep because, as I clearly demonstrated above, the reason given for deletion is a misapplication of policy.
390:
207:
1043:
997:
751:
40:
473:. The significance comes from the games all being played on a show that has been broadcast in television's
1018:
960:
948:
834:
826:
818:
669:
498:
482:
346:
329:
291:
263:
243:
223:
1039:
935:
902:
856:
785:
679:
651:
619:
601:
550:
508:
470:
412:
374:
36:
369:
grounds for deletion, I find that the actual policy itself does not support deletion in this instance.
647:
993:
744:
952:
927:
177:
1010:
985:
977:
735:
718:
710:
435:
361:
1014:
956:
830:
665:
494:
342:
325:
287:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1038:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
955:? As for the addition of sources, that is simply an editing issue and not one of deletion.--
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
981:
931:
898:
852:
843:
This is the first time in this AfD that I have engaged a delete !vote. As far as I can tell
822:
781:
776:
775:
It has already been demonstrated that NOTSTATS does not apply to this article. Furthermore,
731:
615:
597:
546:
408:
370:
312:
57:
588:
I had a very justified reason for !voting keep. I was able to demonstrate that WP:NOTSTATS
873:
802:
686:
572:
516:
449:
387:
204:
61:
821:
please. There is no crime in responding to posted comments. Further, the response to
714:
490:
431:
304:
283:
53:
889:
So you think that this is a list of miscellaneous information? What, may I ask, is
116:
610:
Oh, one more thing. If you must leave pompous, sanctimonious edit summaries like
307:. I agree it can be easily sourced, but this is not a topic for an encyclopedia.
1013:"Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context." --
308:
474:
466:
988:
is inapplicable to these particular statistics; they are not contextualized
870:
846:
799:
683:
569:
513:
446:
384:
201:
430:
Does not violate NOT, no convincing reason for deletion has been advanced.
664:
Sunday and
Thursday games aren't nationally televised? That's news to me.
60:
apply. No clear consensus amongst editors on these subjective questions.
992:, and the article is titled for the standings, not the competition.
869:
It's just your opinion that they don't apply. I don't agree with it.
462:
594:
let whoever closes this discussion arrive at his/her own conclusions
1032:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
705:
Finite dataset displayed in a intuitive table is obviously
479:
List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series
825:
is new and called for--to which I add the arguments at
611:
593:
112:
108:
104:
240:
list of
American football-related deletion discussions
176:
507:
Monday Night
Football passes GNG and that's why have
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1046:). No further edits should be made to this page.
951:list. Were you referring to another section of
893:about it? And how is the listing of statistics
220:list of Television-related deletion discussions
360:Here is the apparently applicable portion of
190:
79:Monday Night Football all-time team standings
71:Monday Night Football all-time team standings
8:
568:sides. Not only those in favor of deleting.
258:Note: This debate has been included in the
238:Note: This debate has been included in the
218:Note: This debate has been included in the
461:The article is not just on games played on
829:to help provide background to the scene.--
260:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
257:
237:
217:
477:slot since 1970 and has become #4 on the
324:per nom. (P.S. Go Hawks. We're no. 1.)
7:
469:, but of games played on the show
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
907:03:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
881:14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
861:14:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
839:10:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
810:07:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
790:03:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
767:01:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
723:00:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
694:07:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
674:01:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
656:18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
624:20:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
606:20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
590:does not apply to this article
580:17:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
555:14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
524:16:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
503:10:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
457:09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
440:04:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
417:14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
395:09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
379:23:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
351:03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
334:23:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
317:15:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
296:14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
272:14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
252:14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
232:14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
212:13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
976:. This is the very image of
947:the list is most certainly a
1023:14:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
1002:05:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
965:01:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
940:01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
678:Again, this not an AFD for
65:12:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1063:
819:Encourage full discussions
1035:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
742:trivia, nothing more.
200:WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTSTATS
980:. I'm unpersuaded by
680:Monday Night Football
471:Monday Night Football
984:'s assertion that
509:an article on that
52:. Does it violate
738:. The article is
303:clearly violates
274:
264:Shawn in Montreal
254:
244:Shawn in Montreal
234:
224:Shawn in Montreal
1054:
1037:
850:
763:
756:
749:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
34:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1044:deletion review
1033:
949:WP:DISCRIMINATE
844:
827:WP:DISCRIMINATE
759:
752:
745:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1060:
1058:
1049:
1048:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
970:
969:
968:
967:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
884:
883:
864:
863:
841:
813:
812:
793:
792:
770:
769:
725:
699:
698:
697:
696:
676:
659:
658:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
608:
583:
582:
558:
557:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
400:
399:
398:
397:
355:
354:
353:
319:
298:
276:
275:
255:
235:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1059:
1047:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1030:
1029:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:Paul McDonald
1012:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
972:
971:
966:
962:
958:
957:Paul McDonald
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
922:
921:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
891:miscellaneous
888:
887:
886:
885:
882:
878:
875:
872:
868:
867:
866:
865:
862:
858:
854:
848:
842:
840:
836:
832:
831:Paul McDonald
828:
824:
820:
817:
816:
815:
814:
811:
807:
804:
801:
797:
796:
795:
794:
791:
787:
783:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
768:
765:
764:
762:
757:
755:
750:
748:
741:
737:
733:
729:
726:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
701:
700:
695:
691:
688:
685:
681:
677:
675:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
653:
649:
644:
641:
640:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
574:
571:
567:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
552:
548:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
525:
521:
518:
515:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
495:Paul McDonald
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
458:
454:
451:
448:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
425:
418:
414:
410:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
396:
392:
389:
386:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
367:
363:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:Paul McDonald
340:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
299:
297:
293:
289:
288:Paul McDonald
285:
281:
278:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
253:
249:
245:
241:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
206:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1034:
1031:
1006:
989:
973:
953:WP:LISTCRUFT
944:
928:WP:LISTCRUFT
923:
894:
890:
760:
753:
746:
743:
739:
727:
706:
702:
666:Clarityfiend
642:
589:
565:
427:
365:
357:
338:
326:Clarityfiend
321:
305:WP:NOT#STATS
300:
279:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1011:WP:NOTSTATS
986:WP:NOTSTATS
982:Lepricavark
978:WP:NOTSTATS
932:K.e.coffman
899:Lepricavark
853:Lepricavark
782:Lepricavark
736:WP:NOTSTATS
711:WP:BLUDGEON
648:WikiGuy1980
616:Lepricavark
598:Lepricavark
547:Lepricavark
409:Lepricavark
371:Lepricavark
362:WP:NOTSTATS
358:Strong Keep
164:free images
713:, please.
475:prime time
1040:talk page
895:excessive
823:WP:TRIVIA
777:WP:TRIVIA
732:WP:TRIVIA
487:USA Today
286:easily.--
62:Lankiveil
58:WP:TRIVIA
37:talk page
1042:or in a
1007:Addition
945:response
715:UW Dawgs
612:this one
432:Jclemens
123:View log
56:? Does
39:or in a
994:FalconK
339:Comment
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
990:at all
974:Delete
924:Delete
730:, per
728:Delete
491:WP:GNG
463:Monday
322:Delete
309:Prevan
301:Delete
284:WP:GNG
142:Google
100:delete
54:WP:NOT
754:Under
747:Crash
467:night
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1019:talk
998:talk
961:talk
936:talk
926:per
903:talk
857:talk
847:Tvx1
835:talk
786:talk
761:ride
740:pure
719:talk
703:Keep
670:talk
652:talk
643:Keep
620:talk
602:talk
566:both
551:talk
499:talk
485:and
483:ESPN
436:talk
428:Keep
413:talk
375:talk
347:talk
330:talk
313:talk
292:talk
280:Keep
268:talk
248:talk
228:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
707:not
493:.--
465:at
192:TWL
121:– (
1021:)
1000:)
963:)
938:)
905:)
897:?
879:1
859:)
837:)
808:1
788:)
734:,
721:)
692:1
682:.
672:)
654:)
622:)
604:)
596:?
578:1
553:)
522:1
501:)
455:1
438:)
415:)
393:1
377:)
364::
349:)
332:)
315:)
294:)
270:)
262:.
250:)
242:.
230:)
222:.
210:1
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
1017:(
996:(
959:(
934:(
901:(
877:x
874:v
871:T
855:(
849::
845:@
833:(
806:x
803:v
800:T
784:(
717:(
690:x
687:v
684:T
668:(
650:(
618:(
600:(
576:x
573:v
570:T
549:(
520:x
517:v
514:T
497:(
453:x
450:v
447:T
434:(
411:(
391:x
388:v
385:T
373:(
345:(
328:(
311:(
290:(
266:(
246:(
226:(
208:x
205:v
202:T
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.