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. L Faraone 01:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Turkish Super League all time table

Turkish Super League all time table (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not notable enough to warrant an article and WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. An admin suggested I go to AfD. QED237  (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237  (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - There are lots of articles like these, Category. - Koppapa ( talk) 16:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep- I really did not understand why to be deleted? There are many examples of this kind tables. i.e. Bundesliga, Premier League, Argentina, Norway. All going to be deleted? If the problem is references, I found 3 references. Not enough? -- Teacher0691 ( talk) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - non-notable LISTCRUFT / OR. Giant Snowman 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I can't agree with the assessment that this is cruft, but is definitely original synthesis, given that the only source listed to actually include a complete all-time table is self-published and not reliable. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep- Still no answers to my questions above. This list is a summary of 57 seasons. Süper lig seasons also exist in wiki. It is not hard to make an excell table and add them. On the other hand, it is said that the source is not reliable, however the same source is used many times in wiki such as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. The same source is considered as 4th reliable source after uefa, sw and wiki at Bert Kassies's page. Please can someone explain me what is really wrong with this article? -- Teacher0691 ( talk) 12:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Teacher0691: Please do not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per WP:OR, no reliable source to support the calculations. Arguments that the creation of this table is simple mathematics are stretching things quite a bit, it is not a simple task for any reader of the page to confirm the accuracy of the data provided. Even if there were a reliable source, there would be major WP:NOTSTATS issues. Fenix down ( talk) 08:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - sivritepe is a reliable source because as I mentioned before this source is used many and many time in Wiki. (Me and anyone can find them so easily). On the other hand, the reader of the page (approximately average 30 in last 90 days) are not wondering about the source, they wonder the most recent and updated table of their supporting team's position overall. And in finally, as a Pending changes reviewer in trwiki, we don't want to loose an article so easily which can be developed. If and only if the source is the problem, please look at the intervikies of that article. Please clear up them all or keep. (And only 2 delete votes yet. Is that enough for a consensus?) -- Teacher0691 ( talk) 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Sivritepe is self-published and therefore not reliable. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:51, 29 May 2015 (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.