Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach

Add links
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. While there were policy-based arguments on both sides that dealt with whether the subject of all her goals is notable enough for a stand-alone list, much of this discussion has devolved into whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid comparison or not, which is only tangentially relevant to the discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach

[edit]
List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If they want to look at the list of int. goals scored, they can look under this article. Plus this page violates WP:NOTSTATS. – Michael (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Christine Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be true for you, to a journalist, historian, or someone else interested in women athletes, the Olympics, and the history of football, the article is not WP:CRUFT. See Wikipedia:Fancruft#Articles_about_fictional_works, specifically: "The term "fancruft" is most commonly applied to fictional subjects." Hmlarson (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, but please read the first sentence of that essay before quoting an irrelevant part of it. Funny Pika! 23:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's an essay. It's fascinating, but it has no bearing on anything here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but a little torn on this). Many prominent male international footballers have a list of their international goals within their article e.g. Lionel Messi, David Beckham, Pelé etc, so clearly the community believe that listing international goals is noteworthy. It so happens that Wambach has so many goals that she should be afforded the right to a standalone list of her goals (since adding the list to her main article would violate WP:SIZE). Seems reasonable. Although some of the info in the list seems a little too statty. Having said that, there should be no reason why the list of goals shouldn't be allowed to exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say anything about not having a list of goals within an article? Messi, Beckham and Pele have nothing to do with this discussion. – Michael (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the flaws of pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that it isn't always valid. For starters, those three highlighted articles are 2-3 times larger than the suggested article size given in WP:SIZE. If I were to try to condense it, I'd start by pruning bloated statistics like individual goals scored. Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe anyone on this list has their own international goals scored page - so by that same logic clearly the community believe that listing international goals on a separate page is not that noteworthy. Just because it exists in an article doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough to be on a stand alone page, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Lastly, the omission of detailed statistics such as goals scored doesn't detract from the summaries already provided on their respective main articles (Abby Wambach#International goals and Christine Sinclair#International). Milestone goals are mentioned and those scored during major tournaments are also included below that. Funny Pika! 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a case that the community have clearly agreed that international goals are notable enough for inclusion in articles. Once the list of goals becomes too big, it should become a standalone list. That's what's happened here. "Milestone" goals are purely subjective and have no place in Wikipedia. We also should note that we avoid having lists on articles which are, by default, collapsed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd acknowledge that many football players have international goals listed in their articles via WP:EDITCONCENSUS, none have yet to have their own standalone list - even if they are far over the suggested 50kb for article size (like the previous examples). As per WP:SUMMARY: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." Milestone goals are simply notable ones - those that meet the notablity criteria and gain significant coverage. Funny Pika! 13:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define what a milestone goal is? Your opinion what a milestone goal may be different from mine. There's no doubt that international goals from the third-highest scorer in female football history is notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think that the phrase "meet the notablity criteria and gain significant coverage" would be synonymous with this by now, but I'll restate it for the purpose of this discussion. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that all "international goals from the third-highest scorer in female football history" are notable. Some of them are noteworthy in their own right and are mentioned in her article, but merely listing all her individual international caps and goals on a separate page is indiscriminate because goals which would have been notable are relegated to some minor tabulated detail without any critical commentary. Funny Pika! 20:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we're both churning out the same old dross, just from different directions. I want the encyclopedia to be inclusive, not a paper one, you want it to avoid "statistics". Let's agree to disagree. Looks like you'll get your way in any case, and we should therefore remove all mention of anything other than these so called "noteworthy" goals (how did you define those, once again, because I bet I could source an article describing each and every Wambach international goal if that's what you really want...)? What are your criteria for "noteworthy goals"? If you want commentary, we could "expand" the list article, that's not too hard either. It's not a do-or-die scenario, you could actually suggest improvements if you really believe in what you're saying! (And note, please read WP:DISCRIMINATE before pointing at the not-relevant WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list is far from an indiscriminate list of statistics. It is a well-defined set of items, all notable. And the article has over 200 references to prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we are. I'm not quite sure how to define "notable" goals for you without having to explicitly cut and paste the WP:General Notability Criteria, but I suppose an example would be Maradona's Hand of God goal and Goal of the Century during Argentina's 1986 World Cup quarter final match against England. Like I've already mentioned, her goals are already discussed succinctly here: Abby Wambach#International career. If you feel like contributing to that section, feel free. Getting back to the topic at hand, those 204 US Soccer references document her participation in each of the 204 international matches she's played in - which only go to confirm that they exist, not that they are in any way notable. Just because a notable person scores a goal does not mean that goal automatically inherits notability, which is what this list hinges on. Funny Pika! 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well not really, not at all. This list hinges on the fact that it's too large to exist in the main article. And it's clearly not a failing of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's a well defined set of data in an accessible format. Still, as I said, you just want to get rid of things like this, I can't see a problem as this is not a paper encyclopedia. Let's leave it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'm merely trying to ascertain whether I may have missed something but the same repetitive response over and over again is giving me pause for thought. You clearly think that international goals are not indiscriminate because they appear to be a definable set, whereas I don't believe they are a notable definable set. And so yes, Wikipedia is not meant to be WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Funny Pika! 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, your attempts to discuss this are well intentioned, I'm sure. In any case, thanks for your contributions, you seem very well abreast of the various SHORTCUTS having only been here three months, very keen work! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see how this list violates WP:NOTSTATS, which warns only against the inclusion of unwieldy and unnecessary detailed lists of information within articles ("Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.") - which obviously would be a problem if this monstrous table was included within Abby Wambach. If this list was poorly sourced or otherwise unmaintained then I could agree that it's an unnecessarily detailed set of information - but as it's up-to-date and verifiable to reliable sources, I simply view it as a valid split of bulky information as per WP:SPLIT that provides useful information to readers interested in more depth. ~ mazca talk 23:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the title is quite misleading - it should read something along the lines of List of Abby Wambach international statistics. Not only does it include individual international goals scored, but details of every international match played (tabulated in four different formats) and also a list of assists made by each of her teammates. If that doesn't fall under "Excessive listings of statistics" I'm not sure what would. Funny Pika! 02:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list itself could use some work, but the principle of the list's existence is really what we're debating. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Harvardton (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but they seem to prove the principle that "international goals" being listed have community consensus, unless you can prove otherwise. Once a section of an article becomes too large, WP:SIZE, we split it off. That's why this article exists. If you want to delete this article, you want to delete international goals being listed in every article where they are listed. Correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. I do not see any critical commentary that could be provided to supplement this stats listing. This is cruft. A pure stat listing of a players home runs was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season for the same reason. Articles are not WP:SPLIT just because they are long, but because the content being split is meaningful. Sorry, I'm not buying the OTHERSTUFF arguments without more convincing justification.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bonds' season list is different, that's home runs in a single season in a domestic sport. This is career total goals in an international career, much more significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The common point that I see is a statistics listing where few sources discusses many of the entries at once (unlike in the presidential election example). With all due respect to WP:LISTN, my standards are slightly stricter when it comes to a list of statistics.—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apart from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, NBC, Sports Illustrated in a few seconds of looking? Oh, and FIFA seem to think her international goals are worth noting too.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The collective goals are notable. It just conflicts with NOTSTATS and CRUFT to have a statistical listing of each of 200+ games that included 155 goals. Perhaps the NOTSTATS policy can be clarified if I am in the minority.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure, I can start a few ideas here. There are three clauses to NOTSTATS, (1) Summary-only descriptions of works - not applicable since this is real. (2) Lyrics databases - not applicable, this isn't lyrical. (3) Excessive listings of statistics. Aha, this must be the one. So the policy goes on to explain "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". Okay, this isn't the neatest of lists, but it can be improved. So just say the word, we can improve it. Secondly, I think sufficient explanatory text is already available. Don't you? So please, we can either improve the article a shade to reduce its "confusability", or just summarily delete it, because I can't see anything else in NOSTATS that this article breaches. Unless you'd care to clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did I say you can't have a list of goals within an individual article? No. Did I say you can't create a seperate article that contains stats yes? It's either you have a list of goals under the main article of the athlete or you don't list them at all. If these pages are kept then we might as well create List of Barcelona goals scored by Lionel Messi, List of Real Madrid goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo, List of Premier League titles won by Manchester United or aside from football, List of Touchdowns thrown by Brett Favre, List of World Series Titles by the New York Yankees, List of Home Runs hit by Barry Bonds, etc. But we can't do that. Why? Because it violates WP:NOTSTATS. Why are the articles I nominated any different? – Michael (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read WP:NOTSTATS and WP:DISCRIMINATE, this is clearly not an indiscriminate list and abides by the suggestions provided: "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Hmlarson (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus all the examples you've provided are on a domestic level, this list is international in its coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the article is clearly in a bad way, breaching a number of our manual of style article, that is irrelevant when determining notability. The parent article is long enough that to add this list onto it would not be viable, and it is my belief that given the extraordinary number of goals that she has scored, and that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia this is a justified standalone list. Harrias talk 17:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, folks, but this list is just plain goofy and serves no significant encyclopedic purpose. (And, yes, for the record, I am an Abby Wambach fan.) We don't need lists of Babe Ruth's individual home runs, Dan Marino's individual touchdown passes, Michael Jordan's individual baskets, or Bobby Orr's individual hockey goals. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, a fansite, or a sports blog. This is yet another example of the unsupervised fancruft that grows in sports articles because some folks don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a fan blog. It is an endemic Wikipedia-wide problem in that many contributors simply don't have a firm grasp of what an appropriate level of detail is for a given subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point is that all of your examples are purely domestic and mean nothing to anyone outside the good ol' USA. Wambach's international goals have a global reach and are internationally significant, not just meaningful to the inward-looking NBL, NFL, NBA etc. You need to realise that international sport transcends the US borders, and is of interest to more than just the USA, unlike all the examples you've provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike Dirtlawyer1 (talk), I'm not particularly a Wambach fan – a bit handy with her elbows for my tastes – ask Faye White! And this article could do with some more prose, less psychedelic colours and new title, but these are no grounds for deletion. Bagumba (talk), I don't see any precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season. One of the reasons it was deleted was apparently because the same material was already covered sufficiently at List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds, which is (somewhat generously at first glance) a featured list. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, only one of the participants for the Bonds AfD cited duplication of List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds. The consensus to delete in that case was pretty much due to NOTSTATS.—Bagumba (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just statistic not an article.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Scoring international goals isn't really a big deal; it's an honour, sure, but it's not a big deal, and I don't think it should even be listed in the biography article, let alone as a separate page. – PeeJay 14:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really is a big deal, especially when you've done it 155 times. This list cannot fit into the main article, if you object to international goals being listed, I'll assume you'll be deleting those sections from Bobby Moore, Bobby Charlton, George Best etc? I'm happy to do that if you agree that international goals shouldn't be listed anywhere in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 155 international goals is pretty good, yes, but to be fair, women play more international matches than men do, so it may sound impressive compared to male records, but it's not really comparable. And yes, I would like to delete those sections from those articles. In fact, I think there was a recent consensus at WT:FOOTY to do just that. – PeeJay 22:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for all those voting delete, I'd like to ask if they would also ensure that all lists of international goals are removed from all international footballers, male and female, across all of Wikipedia. Voting delete here isn't really a vote to delete a standalone list which has become too large to easily be accommodated in the main article, it's clearly a vote to remove the existence of this kind of list of goals from Wikipedia altogether. What makes a "milestone" international goal? What makes a "notable" international goal? I don't know. What I do know is that having a factual list of international goals, sourced correctly does not do this computer-based encyclopaedia any harm. Deleting it, and therefore setting a precedent to remove all international goals from all articles possibly does harm what we're doing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to run through this over and over again? Voting delete means people are voting to remove the two pages that I nominated. That's it. I never said a damn thing about removing a list of goals from every single page. – Michael (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the implication of your nomination. You think these lists are not notable. Hence the information is not notable, no matter where it exists. There's a reason why a few of these lists have been spun off to standalone lists, namely WP:SIZE. If you want to delete these lists, you want to remove all such lists from Wikipedia. There's no other logical explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be bundled as an WP:ALLORNOTHING proposition. This is about the need for standalone lists which enumerate one-by-one over a 100 games worth of statistics. The community is capable of applying precedent when warranted, as WP:OTHERSTUFF is often cited when past cases are applied incorrectly.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but deletion of lists of international goals, whether they be standalone or part of an article, is now contingent on this AFD whether you like it or not. Of course, I don't expect you to change your mind, but those who don't believe this list can stand alone really need to examine whether such lists can stand as part of a main article, since this information has been considered too much for inclusion there. We can improve this standalone list (note, AFD isn't just about saying "delete" it's about saying what you could do to save the list, something which I note many here haven't even considered, despite my invitation to do so). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im a frequent editor in sports-related articles, but football just isnt one of my areas of strong areas. Based on arguments I see here, and in my general sports editing experience, I have yet to see satisfactory justification for complete game-by-game statistics, even if it is limited to international competition. I'd be all for WP:PRESERVE if I saw a viable proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Abby Wambach: Honestly, I can't understand why I'm the only person who's voted merge so far. It's the perfect solution to the problem TRM poses above, while also making it clear that this doesn't deserve a standalone article pbp 20:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just WP:SIZE to contend with then. This list is branched out simply because it makes sense, if we consider the content suitable for a main article, then there's no reason not to consider it, with a suitable lead, and suitable sourcing, for a standalone list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of articles which are LIST. A search for list of goals returns several hundred results. Harvardton (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the topic (i.e. goals scored by Abby Wambach and Christine Sinclair at international level) has not been covered in -depth by reliable, third-party sources. It is therefore not notable. GiantSnowman 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Abby Wambach. Don't really see the relevance of WP:SIZE, the info would be in a collapsible table not affecting readability - or reading time, note that a collapsible table for goals already exists at the parent article - and the two pages together, without any kind of stripping, would be under 60k (based on article sizes of 53,710 and 4,916). SIZE says an article of 200KB would be commonly split, 60k is well under this limit. Also note that reading time would be significantly reduced if the article was trimmed, for example the 34 types of assist she has received - which, by the way, looks completely WP:OR. Therefore the logical conclusion would be to remove all the original research from the list, then merge it into a collapsible table in the parent article. C679 21:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find the guidance, but sometime, a long, long time ago, in a far away galaxy, I was taught that content of a page should never "by default" be collapsed. Otherwise, I don't dispute most of what you're saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but lists of international goals exists in hundreds or even thousands or articles on footballers across Wikipedia. These female footballers, have scored more goals then any other footballers (except Mia Hamm) and having these lists in the parent article would be problematic due to the size of the list, and I agree with The Rambling Man that lists like this shouldn't be collapsed in articles (isn't that what WP:COLLAPSE says?). When we do have lists of international goals in every article on international footballers, we should also allow the biggest lists to be stand-alone lists per WP:SPINOFF. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a fan site. Mootros (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a "fan site" article, it's a list of international goals which is too long to be hosted in the main article, per WP:SIZE. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Delete That's what fansites are for. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a "fan site" article, it's a list of international goals which is too long to be hosted in the main article, per WP:SIZE. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Keep: Notable component of this particular football player's accomplishments that has achieved media coverage for this particular accomplishment. --LauraHale (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. There are sections in their individual articles describing their international accomplishments, a detailed list of every goal goes beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. It would be like a list of every ace achieved by Serena Williams in an international tournament. I appreciate the amount of work that went into this, but perhaps it would be better received in a football Wikia. J04n(talk page) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish. Serena will get 20 aces in a match. An international footballer will be lucky to score 20 goals in their entire career. So, to reiterate, "20 aces in two hours", "20 goals in 20 years". It just so happens this lady has scored a lot of goals, which is why her list of goals remains notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2013 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_international_goals_scored_by_Abby_Wambach&oldid=1138013850"