Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison

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. The keep arguments have not rebutted the synth concerns. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison[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)

I am at a loss of what this article is trying to achieve, I have a couple of concerns of, failing WP:GNG, WP:SNYTH, WP:OR. This just seems like a collection of statistics thrown together like some weird almanac and as far as I am aware, we aren't an almanac. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like the overview and the football CL has a similar list.~Do you want also to delete this one?-Malo95 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This vote is basically a WP:ILIKEIT. HawkAussie (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of sources which doesn't help in having the article pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @HawkAussie: I have add some sources.--Malo95 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this Article will be deleted I 'm forced to Afd following articles: UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison, AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison, Performance record of clubs in the Premier League, EuroLeague clubs performance comparison, Copa Sudamericana clubs performance comparison, Euro Hockey League clubs performance comparison and similar lists. So this will be a general discussion if performance comparison lists are notable or not. Malo95 (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete synthesis, and extremely unwieldy for the user. Get rid of all those others too. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like others, I note the lack of sourcing, and the failures of the GNG, NOR, SYNTH. I am also entirely unmoved by implied fearmongering, and am not shaking in my boots in horror at the prospect of deleting any other such comparison articles that likewise fail these key guidelines and policies ... which no one editor would be "forced" to do. Ravenswing 09:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All this does is summarise the performance timeline of results in the competition in a format easy for a user to digest. This sort of thing is common across Wikipedia e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines. It is clearly false to describe this as WP:OR as this is basic factual statistics without any arbitrary threshold e.g. 100 clean sheets in List of Premier League goalkeepers with 100 or more clean sheets. It is clearly false to describe this as WP:SNYTH, the description of which talks about merging source text in a way to create a false conclusion. It clearly meets WP:GNG, as there is significant coverage about teams historical performances, and there are a multitude of reliable sources. WP:ILIKEIT is an essay, not a policy page, but even so I fail to see how this fits that description. Jopal22 (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Malo95: 52 sources all from one website does not pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Govvy: Using one reliable source does not mean other reliable sources do not exist. It's just practical. Jopal22 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 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.