Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Football Statisticians

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 keep. Coverage has been shown to exist. Whether it should be moved to Ray Spiller is a discussion that can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Football Statisticians[edit]

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

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

fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has an entry of over a page in a print encyclopedia from a reliable publisher, as well as other sources. Do we aspire to cover less than such print encyclopedias? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Over a page" is disingenuous. It has three paragraphs of coverage. One paragraph of which is that they collect "interesting and informative information", and then mentions examples of some of the facts they have used. That leaves two paragraphs, much of which of the remaining information is now outdated as this encyclopaedia is from 2002. Do you really think this is significant coverage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing disingenuous about saying that an encyclopedia entry about the subject of over a page has over a page. That it consists of three long paragraphs rather than ten short ones is neither here nor there. And yes, this is very clearly significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a start there were two in the article before you made that comment, and many more can be found by clicking on "books" and "scholar" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's been a fair bit of coverage in newspapers over the years especially with regard to its founder Ray Spiller who seems to have been edited out of the article, a couple of examples: The Independent (22 Nov 1997) Football: Ray Spiller has turned a hobby into a priceless commodity - and that commodity is information and the Daily Mirror (29 Dec 1996) I turn women off says the real Statto Piecesofuk (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One article with one mention of this organisation, one article with zero mentions of this organisation. At a push, this guy may pass GNG, as the latter article says he also had his own television show as well, but the organisation definitely doesn't pass. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have time to go through the hundreds of other mentions in the British Newspaper Archive, Proquest and archive.org Piecesofuk (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean out of all the hundreds of other mentions to have picked one that didn't even mention the organisation, I guess that was just bad luck huh. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were to show that Ray Spiller was behind the organization the details which you seemed to have recently removed from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Football_Statisticians&type=revision&diff=1095095045&oldid=1095095006&diffmode=source Piecesofuk (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Links to British Newspaper Archive results and archive.org results https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=%22association%20of%20football%20statisticians%22&retrievecountrycounts=false https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22association+of+football+statisticians%22&sin=TXT a separate search can also be carried out at Proquest https://www-proquest-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/?accountid=196403 Piecesofuk (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally nothing in any of those are WP:SIGCOV. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just show you know this is probabally the third time User:ItsKesha has tagged this article for deletion which was declined and had previosuly received a severe administartor warning for this persistant behavior, check the talk page history that he tried to hide: [1] Dilbaggg (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The user is trying to delete my vote claiming it as a personal attack, i just brought a vital issue into attention, it is no way a personal attack also deleting other people's vote is a pure policy violation, let admins decide then. This is not your personal talk page and you can't remove other people's votes and I will readd this a 1000 times if needed. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a personal attack that has no relevancy here, and bears no merit in your criteria for keeping or deleting an article. Also, this is actually the first time I have started an AFD for this article, not the third. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and has no bearing on whether the article passes SIGCOV. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbaggg said that this is the third time that you tagged this article for deletion, not the third time that you started an AfD for this article. It was actually the fourth time, including where you edit-warred a speedy deletion tag back into it after it had been declined. That is, however, a behavioral issue that should have no bearing on this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting one edit isn't an "edit war". CSD, PROD and AFD are completely different things which I have put forth in order to delete this article; it's not against any rule to attempt different methods, what on earth does this have to do with anything? And so, this isn't a "behavioral issue", and even bringing up the CSD and PROD attempts has absolutely no relevancy in the slightest, so I ask you as well to refrain from personal attacks. Please could somebody kindly remove this quite frankly pointless and distracting discussion? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are different things, and there is no "rule" against using them. Re-reverting to reinstate a speedy deletion tag after it has been declined is however edit-warring, which is a behavioral issue, and pointing out that you did so is not a personal attack. Can't you just get back to explaining how significant coverage is not significant coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2022 (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.