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. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian rules football records[edit]

List of Australian rules football records (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)

This article is (and/or will become) an unmanageable Wikipedia:No original research problem because we have no basis for the inclusion or exclusion of statistics. The only reference I know of which considers nation-wide records in one set of lists is James Hothersall's [1] page – and as this page states clearly in its lead section, there is no universally accepted definition of a "top-level competition" or a "senior match". Indeed, the editor of the nominated page has commenced by defining a top level game differently from Hothersall – by omitting interstate games in stating Craig Bradley's tally of games – with no apparent basis for this decision other than the editor's choice (and, indeed, recent moves by AFL historians regarding Bruce Doull's consecutive games record would make clear that there is a strong counterargument for excluding interstate games from the list). This lack of an endorsed and agreed-upon definition of what games count and what games do not count will make it impossible to put together an article which properly meets the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies; and until the AFL's historians put forward such a definition that can be used unambiguously, I suggest we have no option but to delete any page which tries to compile nation-wide records in this manner. Aspirex (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:A10 - article already exists at List of VFL/AFL records —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not a case of WP:A10. List of VFL/AFL records specifically covers records in the Australian Football League; List of Australian rules football records is intended to cover combined records from the Australian Football League, South Australian National Football League, West Australian Football League and possibly others which have at different times been considered of equal seniority. Aspirex (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oops, wasn't reading close enough. Per other sports, lists of records should be league specific eg UEFA club competition records and statistics —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, ill-defined and unmanageable. FullPointsFooty (I think now AustralianFootball.com?) had a great essay on what should be considered top-level football, hopefully one day someone will put together a database along the lines of CricketArchive or whatever baseball site always seems to get used. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no consistent standard as to what is considered a top level Australian rules football competition. Therefore it would be inevitable that this will end up as an original research dump. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that Barry Round's VFA record is included shows the arbitrary nature of the article, and highlights the reason why record articles are league-specific. StAnselm (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unreferenced and unnotable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2015 (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.