Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders[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:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment darn nice looking list, and a good amount of work went in to compiling it. But I have to agree that I think this is too much stats-based and not enough article-content based (if that is such a thing). Is it a notable topic? Hmmm... I'm on the fence on that. It is well sourced and I'm confident the subject is discussed among reliable sources over time. But is it suitable for inclusion? The content might be more suitable for an online sports almanac and I suggest that enthusiastic editors try another wiki. Seems to violate WP:NOTSTATS. Is there content that can be created around thosee stats to turn it into an article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We usually keep list articles on leaders in major NFL statistics (and this seems like a major statistic). I don't see it as a failure of NOTSTATS, which says it only applies to Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. – the statistics are explained in the first paragraph. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR. Stats are all amalgamated by one particular source. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to Geno Smith, but delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought Keep Statistic is defined in the lead and a players completion percentage is an important stat with notability established below.--Newtothisedit (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A relevant guideline is WP:LISTN:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
—Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a long-standing and well written listing of an important stat, both yearly and historical. I have no idea why this would be nommed for deletion, is it a good faith mistake? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bagumba's comment points to a guideline that I believe this subject aptly meets. As Randy Kryn mentioned, it is an important stat and it's stat and it's discussed enough by independent sources and broadcasters that there exists WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are these sources that show these items are "discussed as a group"? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  So, I guess that depends on what type of sources we're looking for here. Are we looking for year-by-year discussions, or sources that help to establish completion percentage as a notable statistic? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither. We are looking for sources that talk about completion percentage by player in such a league table. There's plenty of "important statistics" out there, but they only really denote meaning as an article if sources talk about the people as a group. We don't require the group listings to be up to date, you can use other sourcing for that, but just having Citations to specific people's percentages isn't good enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba added some good references, but here's a few more:
    Completion percentage records are falling around the NFL
    
    Aljancic: Many reasons why NFL completion percentages have dramatically improved
    
    NFL pass completion percentages soar to historic levels
    
    We need to re-think what a ‘good’ completion percentage is, and other stats
    
    There's a lot of articles that will pick specific players to compare, but I tried to find ones that included more of the group. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTSTATS does not apply per the first couple sentences of that policy because the list of the stat is explained. I've got other arguments I could make but they would border on WP:OTHERSTUFF and I use that policy quite frequently so it would make a hypocrite violating it.--Rockchalk7 17 15:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN as the leaders are discussed by independent reliable sources. I've added three sources to the page: Tom Brady vs. the NFL: The Case for Football's Greatest Quarterback, CBSSports.com, The Washington Post.—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets GNG, which is based on all available sources, not just the current state of the article. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient evidence that it passes GNG, and I implore the OP to refrain from citing NOTSTATS when it clearly is not applicable. I see people cite that policy from time to time, but I'm honestly not sure if I've ever seen anyone cite it correctly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's snowing.--Rockchalk7 17 02:12, 19 January 2023 (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.