Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progression of Latvia association football caps record

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. There is some dispute as to the relative notability of some of the bundled pages, but the overall consensus here is that all of these pages rather unsalvageably end up being original research in the form of synthesis of published material, and as such are considered to veer too far into the area of an almanac of sports statistics, rather than an encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^talk 19:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of Latvia association football caps record[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)

As per consensus established in this AfD. The concerns around WP:LISTN persist with all of these articles. There are issues with WP:NOTSTATS as well and we need to be more than simply a mirror of RSSSF and IFFHS.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pinging some of the editors from the previous AfD to see if they have any comment to make on the topic as a whole. Please note that I have not included Progression of Andorra association football caps record or Progression of Albania association football caps record as both are under PROD. @Govvy: @Metropolitan90: @GiantSnowman: @Geschichte: @Nigej: @Ludost Mlačani: @Power~enwiki: Spiderone 13:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Personally all these are just boring stats, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Is there a need for 200 (or whatever) of these articles? I think not. Surely something like England national football team records and statistics#Appearances could be expanded with some text, if there is sufficient interest in the topic. I have a little sympathy for Progression of association football caps record (which is not listed here), which covers all countries and has a certain general interest. Nigej (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and last AFD, these kind of articles are not needed. Giant Snowman 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proceedural keep - on reflection, this kind of bundling is entirely inappropriate as each article needs discussing separately. I think, however, that these kind of articles should be merged with England national football team records etc. Giant Snowman 14:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, I can't speak for all national teams, but in the UK the national team caps record is a notable subject. For example, Steven Davis broke the longstanding Northern Ireland record this week (previously held by Pat Jennings) and this was widely covered [1][2][3][[4]. There hasn't been much recent coverage of the England or Scotland records because nobody has got near those records in recent times, but WP:NTEMP applies to that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't see why it can't be mentioned in the two player articles + Northern Ireland national football team records and statistics#Most capped players "Pat Jennings held the record from a to b, until etc etc.". Text is allowed (indeed encouraged). We're not just a repository of statistical tables. Nigej (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE ALL I don't the point of procedural keep, these tables ARE complete WP:SYNTH. Whats the point in merging these stats to saturate other articles with more statistics. It's just incredibly infuriating in the way these articles have been constructed, it's just showing information in a really bad design with no thought. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fully agree with the nominator's points. I also think that some of the content of these article is tending towards trivia. Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly leaning delete, but relisting given that there has been no real discussion about why the merge target is not appropriate as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be happy for merge with all except for the Latvia one. The Latvia one is unsourced and, for all we know, the info might not be correct. I think it would be more sensible to remove it unless someone can go through all of Latvia's match records and synthesise a list for them using those match reports. Spiderone 11:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Govvy actually. We shouldn't be keeping or merging content that's basically synthesised original research. That's not what Wikipedia is about at all Spiderone 18:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also against merging content that basically violates WP:OR and SYNTH. Govvy (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below was placed on the talk page of this AfD, so I am copying it here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the deletion for these articles. I do think the seperate national team pages are fine considering they are the same as Progression of association football caps record except the contents are a bit short. I'm still working hard to find more sources. --FastCube (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)FastCube[reply]

As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we shouldn't be using the existence of other articles as a reason to keep this one Spiderone 18:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 28 October 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.