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 merge to Allsvenskan. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Allsvenskan table[edit]

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

I PRODed this article with the rationale "Non-notable per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time English Football League 1st Division Table." The PROD was contested with the edit summary "You can easlu". Not sure if that means something in Swedish, but I couldn't make heads nor tails of it. Anyway, I still believe this article should be deleted. It is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS because it is only ever going to be a table of stats. It is non-notable because, although it is reliably sourced, it does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources (only ref is from the Swedish Football Association – hardly independent). Finally, I have copyvio concerns because, although facts are not copyrightable, to lay out these statistics in exactly the same format as the SFA ref doesn't seem much more than copy/pasting and then adding some wiki-markup. Jenks24 (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't mean anything in Swedish, it looks like someone tried to write e.g. "You can easily [something]" but hit return rather than the delete key after getting the last two letters wrong. :-) Tomas e (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have an independant and reliable source to deal with the notability problem (Alsjö, Martin (2011). 100 år med Allsvensk Fotboll. Idrottsförlaget. ISBN 978-91-977326-7-3. (Swedish),). The problem here is that the source will be old news after one season, however every year I receive a yearbook from the club I support with the updated table. The issue with WP:NOTSTATS still stands, maybe we can add a lead and a couple of sections regarding the evolution of the table and the teams on it? Will this solve the issue or should I not bother? --Reckless182 (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok then. Thanks for finding a source and I will take your word for it that it deals with the notability problem (I assume Idrottsförlaget is independent from the Swedish Football Association?). Yes, I suppose that if a few paragraphs of prose were added that would also solve the NOTSTATS problem. I think that if you are able/willing to add that then article would probably survive the AfD (and I would be willing to withdraw my nom). The only remaining concern is the possible copyright violation. Copyvio issues are far from my strong suit so I'm going to ask Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) about that. If the copyvio issue checks out (as in it's not a copyvio), then I think it would definitely be worthwhile to add some prose to the article. Jenks24 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Idrottsförlaget is independent from the Swedish FA. I am willing to work on a lead and a section of some sort if the list can be saved in that way. Thanks for your help regarding the copyvio issue, if there's any way to differentiate the table to avoid copyvio, let me know. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this kind of table serves no purpose and violates a number of our guidelines (NOTSTATS, OR, LISTCRUFT). Not even worth merging IMO. Giant Snowman 00:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually why wouldn't merging the list to Allsvenskan be a good idea? I personally believe that this would be a better solution than my suggestion above. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also OK with merging to the main article, provided the table isn't a copyvio. See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyvio question for that discussion. If you can contribute to that at all, I'd appreciate it. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per some discussion with Moonriddengirl and some of my own research on the issue of copyright in lists/tables, I do not think the list is table is creatively presented (it is following the standard format for most football tables) and it is therefore not a copyvio. As a result, I think a merge would be perfectly acceptable. Thanks for bearing with me on this, Reckless. Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per previous discussion. I agree that the list somewhat violates WP:NOTSTATS. However, I support a merge with Allsvenskan as a way to preserve the list on WP. I don't think there should be any problems since the contents of the list doesn't violate copyright. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Why delete this page, when it is the same as All-time FA Premier League table or maybe even better. Maybe it is a non-necessary page at Wikipedia, but what do you then call this: List of Nelson F.C. seasons? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2011 (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.