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 no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this, plus this behaviour is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Performance record of clubs in the Premier League

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Performance record of clubs in the Premier League (  | 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) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 ( talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This discussion is being duplicated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison. The outcome of that decision is likely to be repeated here Jopal22 ( talk) 13:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOSTATS. I find that really annoying to navigate, reading can be tough if you don't understand the statistical concept. This information is around in lots of other articles, this is pointless for wikipedia in my opinion. Govvy ( talk) 11:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not 100% sure you understand the meaning of WP:NOTSTATS (and it is NOTSTATS, not NOSTATS). It doesn't say we shouldn't have statistics at all, just that they should be accompanied by text giving them proper context and that they should be presented appropriately. How does this article fall foul of that directive? – Pee Jay 20:28, 5 August 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
  • Keep - The rationale for deleting the article mentioned in the nomination was spurious. To address Govvy's concerns, design issues are not a reason to delete an article, and I have yet to see this information collated in such a way anywhere else on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate a link to wherever such a table exists. – Pee Jay 06:37, 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 constitutes OR and SYNTH, unless the charts themselves can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party. How could I verify the accuracy of these charts? Also, despite claims above about sources, this lists absolutely no sources. (For links to six more of these see this discussion) -- Lockley ( talk) 00:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. Lockley, please substantiate your SYNTH conclusion via wikipedia policy. There is a whole supplementary section WP:SYNTHNOT and I cannot find anything. There is link to the premier league final league tables under the table. Jopal22 ( talk) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Hello @ Jopal22:. In good faith, I understand SYNTH to mean the re-assembly or collation or juxtaposition of data within wikipedia that doesn't exist outside wikipedia. In this case it's just statistics being synthesized, quantitative data in a table, so I'd rule out any accusations of bias or unfair conclusions. It's just numbers. Presumably they're checkable and correct. But SYNTH is a subset of WP:OR which requires a reliable 3rd party source for the table as it appears here. The first link provided is a list of clubs, no stats at all, no help. The second link goes to a page that dynamically generates tables. Okay. If I go an extra step (I shouldn't have to) & try to re-create this by creating a table for [premier league - all seasons - all matches], then I get results that show the Gunners at #2 and Chelsea at #3. The top rankings don't even match up & there's no year-by-year data in the columns. Checking the accuracy and completeness and underlying assumptions of the charted data as presented here would involve re-creating the entire thing, which is not my job as an encyclopedia user. That's what makes it unverifiable. If there's a reliable 3rd-party source for the chart, all these concerns vanish. Are these rankings not published anywhere else? -- Lockley ( talk) 19:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Lockley: I don't think SYNTH reaches the same conclusion as you think it does. I honestly can't see how you think it backs up the idea that information has to be presented this exact way somewhere else before we can present it this way here. The information is not inaccurate, and while the presentation style may be fairly novel, I don't see how it falls foul of SYNTH. – Pee Jay 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ PeeJay: I'll be more plain then. The chart is wrong. That doesn't take much research to discover. It's wrong in its most basic 1st-2nd-3rd rankings when compared to this list published by the Premier League and listed as a source here, which shows Man United / Arsenal / Chelsea as one two and three overall. If you can prove the chart is wholly accurate using a source outside wikipedia, I'm sincerely happy to be corrected, this whole discussion dries up, you win the day. If you can't show the chart is correct, it's original research, it's inaccurate to boot, it shows exactly why synthesizing data from multiple sources is bad practice, and it doesn't belong here. -- Lockley ( talk) 20:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
You're comparing apples with oranges. The table you've linked to is the all-time table based on every club's number of points accrued over their entire PL history. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the table in this article is ordered by each club's best position (since the table is intended to compare the season-by-season positions of each club). I agree that the ranks are OR, since the ordering is just what we've chosen as the way to present the data, and so I have removed them, but other than that I still don't see how the table is inaccurate. All of the season-by-season positions are right, but you have to pick an order to display the data row-by-row; alphabetical order adds little, but ordering teams by decreasing levels of success (i.e. teams that have won the competition at the top, with a secondary rank by the number of times they've done so, followed by all the rest in order of their best position) is at least informative. – Pee Jay 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Lockley:. Sorry didn't not reply to this originally. It came just before KEEP was decided on the Champs League equivalent and I was waiting to see what the rationale was for not doing the same here before having a longer debate than necessary. PeeJay has summed up exactly what I would have said. The central point of this page is to record every finishing position for each premier league club. The ordering of the teams is secondary, but there has to be some ordering and the order it has been done makes intuitive sense. I am not precious about the rank column remaining as there is an argument for OR which I think is trivial and you could destroy most of wikipedia if you forensically attack every article to that level of detail. I know I will be accused of WP:OTHER but I note that the table you refer to can be found here in wikipedia: Premier League records and statistics#All-time Premier League table. It has a "best position" column with a filter so you can order by that (although lots of this table has no valid reference). I suppose a similar example of factual information which is ordered would be Premier League#Managers, which has been ordered by longest serving - What is the rationale for that? Why not alphabetically etc? - but really that isn't that important - its the content of the table that is the core point there (as here). I suppose I just don't understand why there is a push to get pages like this deleted on small technicalities even though it is objective and sourced and people know how to verify the info when lots of other pages really to fall foul of wiki policy e.g. List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_competitive_honours_won, which I would have no idea who to check, and I would suggest the choice of competitive honours to rank is arbitrary Jopal22 ( talk) 16:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It should be noted as well, this is more a less an expansion of tables used in the main Premier League page in the "Top Four" dominance (2000s), and Emergence of the "Big Six" (2010s) sections. Jopal22 ( talk) 10:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Jopel, You created this article, yet you haven't addressed the main issue. You haven't added any 3rd party sources, you haven't really added any sources. This effectively is a contribution of WP:OR you've created. It seems you have set a dangerous precedent on the article and you haven't addressed these concerns in two years. Govvy ( talk) 19:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 07:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is as encyclopaedically soft and prone to enthusiastic creations a subject as it gets. The attempt at inclusion collides with WP:NOTSTATS since the content here "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion", in combination with the WP:NOTEVERYTHING guideline, i.e. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". (Emphasis in the original.) We do not have independent sources busying themselves with the subject as presented and created. Kudos for the effort undertaken for the text's birth. But Wikipedia is not a collection of randomly put-together information. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedily close down AfD per justification detailed below. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Nfitz's point is evidently correct in view of this. Since we must value good faith highly enoug, it's better to speedily terminate this AfD and allow someone else, as the case might be, to re-submit the article for deletion. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is quite explicit on this: If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept. I'm changing my Delete sugestion accordingly. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with that. This whole AfD saga has been a mess
First Govvy decides he doesn't like think these sort of articles should exist in principle. Instead of raising his concerns on the most active page of the type within football, he chooses a handball page which has low interactions and he is not a member of the project. The low engagement makes it easier to be deleted, and therefore that principle can be snowballed to delete other pages.
Govvy indentifys he doesn't like think these sort of articles should exist in Wikipedia based on seeing a handball article. In hindsight it might had made more sense to raise the AfD on a more active page that had similar issues. The low engagement means some users may not feel the issue has been adequately discussed, and therefore when it snowballs to delete other pages the discussion has to be reopened.
Malo retaliatesresponds by raising AfD on similar pages based upon the principle that if the handball page is deleted for SYTNTH all similar pages should (which is not an illogical position but has not been done in a constructive way)
We end up with multiple articles with similar AfD's making it really hard to engage and have a constructive dialogue. There are various scattergun concerns raised with no real attempt for constructive engagement, and some with constructive and clearly explained concerns. No one really knows if we are debating the AfD as a collective and the principle is being discussed (further confused by the fact the handball article seems to have been deleted in a way that challenges the existence of such pages, but the Champions League verdict contradicts that), or whether each individual article should be viewed separately. Jopal22 ( talk) 10:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I would be interested in User:Spartaz's feedback (who approved the deletion of the handball page). In hindsight I would suggest that as the principle of such tables is being challenged that the engagement in the original handball AfD was not wide enough? Jopal22 ( talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • What is your problem, I don't like your tone and rudeness against me, please leave me alone or I will raise an ANI against you. Govvy ( talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Nfitz: I don't see any rebuttal from other keep votes, Jopal has tried, the rest, well... And the inconsistency in closes doesn't help. This AfD for this article, WP:GNG is still not satisfied on the article. You could argue against WP:OR and ( WP:SYNTH). Regardless of what is said above, design is important for an article, people could employ WP:TNT saying it needs to start again. List of English football champions has the performance of clubs, making this kind of redundant in one way, yet not one person has pointed that out. Govvy ( talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Are you suggesting that one wouldn't be able to find significant in-depth sources about the performance of various clubs in the Premier League, User:Govvy? There may be issues here ... but that's definitely not one of them! Nfitz ( talk) 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Govvy in the similar champions league deletion discussion :"I don't see GNG much a problem". How can CL be ok for GNG, but not PL!!! Jopal22 ( talk) 19:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: @ Nfitz: This has nothing to to with WP:POINTY or bad-faith. The text which I wrote at the EHF AfD was maybe not so good, but I'm not native in English. I tried to inform the other participants that the EHF AfD will also affect other lists.
But there was a conses that such pages are not notable. I believe that if the EHF Article is not notable the other are also not notable. Therefore I created this AfD's. Personally I would like that this Lists will not be deleted, but I respect if there is an other conses. My only wish is that all such lists are treated equally. -- Malo95 ( talk) 13:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominating an article that you'd like not to be deleted, because another article was deleted, is literally the first example listed at WP:POINTY. I don't see a clear consensus at that hockey AFD, and I'd think a DRV would be in order - and surely the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison suggests otherwise. Nfitz ( talk) 14:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ PeeJay: Firstly all the information is already found in each season article for the Premier League, then again all the same information is in Premier League records and statistics. What is this article, a third or forth in displaying all the same information in a different way? Yes you can source numbers and statistics but that is not enough. You must provide sources where this same style is matched somewhere else. Unless that is done, this technically is in breach of WP:OR. To everyone else simply throwing an article together and saying it passes GNG because it's a widely covered subject, you still need to add citations to show that the subject in its form has been represented in independent sources. I do not see that here. Govvy ( talk) 07:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment @ Govvy:. The same information is not in Premier League records and statistics as has been mentioned before e.g. if I wanted to know West Ham's performance record season to season, where would I find that in Premier League records and statistics? "You must provide sources where this same style is matched somewhere else." Please provide a direct link to where this is stated in Wikipedia policy, as it seems you are making up your own definitions of OR. These questions have been asked of you before but you seem to ignore them, which makes it very difficult to assume good faith. Jopal22 ( talk) 08:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Govvy: The information appears for each season in those seasons' articles, sure, and it even appears for each club in the list of each club's seasons, but it doesn't appear anywhere else in this format. If you want to argue that information is being replicated, I agree that we shouldn't be replicating data unnecessarily, but this surely isn't a case of unnecessary replication. Nowhere else on Wikipedia can you find the information in a grid form like this. You're saying it's OR to present the info in a way that isn't done by any other source, but that only applies if the article or list reaches a conclusion unsupported by evidence. This article offers no conclusions from the data, it is just an alternative way of presenting data that can easily be sourced. I think it could be presented better, but poor design is not a reason for deletion. This table is not meant to be a way people can just check on one club's progress, or even the positions for one particular season, it's meant to be a way to show the finishing positions of all clubs in all seasons of the Premier League, and it does that in an easy to understand way. – Pee Jay 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I was curious why this needed deleting and was really struggling to read this on my iPhone but, LOL, Gov is right on that accessibility, this is a terrible article for mobiles, some of the comments here are fantastic and that last dude is not even reading what that Gov wrote, he said you can see the same info on each prem league article, and surely you would go to the West Ham articles anyway! I don’t know, but the peeps wanting to delete make more sense than those wanting to keep, cheers, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:62:EA18:C99A:1649:62C8:D0A8 ( talk) 09:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Sure, yep, definitely going to give due weight to this comment from an anonymous editor who has no prior experience on Wikipedia, yep, sure. – Pee Jay 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - List of English football champions or Premier League records and statistics probably covers the subject adequately so probably best to merge into one of those instead. Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 21:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete since it fails WP:GNG. Plus, a good case could be made for it also failing WP:NOSTATS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Normally I'd be down for a merge, but it's generally weak sauce IMO to merge stuff that fails WP:GNG. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 23:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a WP:REVENGE nomination - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Wm335td ( talk) 14:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle ( talk) 15:20, 13 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Performance_record_of_clubs_in_the_Premier_League&oldid=972817747"