Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Equatorial Guinean records in swimming

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. So Why 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Equatorial Guinean records in swimming[edit]

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

List of mostly empty tables. Whatever relevant information exists can easily be mentioned in the subject's articles. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. T v x1 19:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOT a repository of random information Rrachet (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These national record articles are notable, as evidenced by the fact that virtually every other country has an article similar. (See template at bottom of page). If nom thinks these articles should not exist, he should establish consensus on the relevant project pages, not sneakily pick them off one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. I strongly contest that every country in the world's records are notable. Saying that e.g. US national records carry the same weight as Equatoguinean records is simply ridiculous. This country doesn't even have records in a handful of the events listed in this article. The tables are nearly empty. This not even remotely an encyclopedic entry.T v x1 17:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN (and its list-specific formulation of WP:GNG). Unless significant prose coverage (not just statistics) in reliable sources are found, it's not even presumed notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIINATE. — fortunavelut luna 10:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT a heap of random info. DrStrauss talk 12:05, 10 July 2017 (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.