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. Sandstein 22:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports teams[edit]

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

See WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS. This article was tagged as not meeting the notability guideline 3 years ago and it doesn't look as if the situation has changed. For example, the association football section relies entirely on one source. There is no clear inclusion criteria; why some sports and not others? Why should this exist when we already have List of sports attendance figures which is more concise? Spiderone 14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information as needed. Which to which? Don't care. Information appears to be repeated in another article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopaedia not a sports almanac. inclusion of this information on individual pages (for a football club or stadium for example) would be notable but this doesn't meet the criteria any more now than it did when I first nominated it. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment: I looked at the page view stats out of curiosity, and found something interesting. From 7/1/2015 -to 5/22/2016 there were an average of four readers viewing the page per day.[1] From 5/24/2016 to 9/24/2016 there were an average of thirty six readers viewing the page per day.[2] Page views simply jumped by a factor of nine on 5/23/2016! So I investigated. On that day an IP updated all of the figures, added Australian football, and created five appropriate Also links from this article to other Sports_List articles, and added matching See Also links from those articles back to this article.[3] On that day there was also a spike of 166 software-spider page views.[4] The software-spider page views was probably one or more search engines investigating this page, based on the newly created inbound See Also links pointing to it. I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong, I just thought it was interesting. Alsee (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 07:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#INFO Prevan (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that a list has to be "notable" is fairly silly, given what Wikipedia has become. Why force people to check 50 or a hundred pages when someone compiled the info. in one place? This list, in particular, is very interesting and helpful. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should lists be exempt from notability criteria? Spiderone 08:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's just silly lawyering from people who take the Wiki rules way too seriously. Are there media outlets constantly writing about the list of U.S. presidents or the list of countries ranked by GDP or the list of Madonna's records? No. Nobody ever writes stories about lists. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those that care, I think it's safe to say that the editor may be choosing to ignore all rules that prevent Wikipedia from being better. I tend to agree, lists can have a good place. There is WP:LISTN which we can use as a guideline, but even that measure states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists" and I think that we should pay attention there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this selection of sports stats is notable for a list. Eldumpo (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note - WP:LISTCRUFT, point 11, rules against this type of list as it is almost always going to be out of date. Since the article is only referring to the 'latest season', it is actually already out of date as it is referring to 2015-16 when we have already started 2016-17 in a lot of sports. Also, it gives no reason for its discrimination. For example, why doesn't the list also give the top 10 attendances for handball, rugby union, rugby league, water polo, volleyball etc.? There is no clear reason why the current sports are chosen and why others aren't. Spiderone 09:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note This is silly to the point of being idiotic. The list is not "out of date" at all — the list is simply AS OF the last full season for the teams in question. No one in their right mind would expect a list like this to be updated daily, as games are played around the world. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on this point a little. if the list was of record attendences it would have more of a claim because it wouldn't be immediately out of date, it would only be incomplete. this list as it stands is both constantly out of date and incomplete. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. If it were a list of record attendances of the equivalent, then I would not be putting the list up for AfD. Simple as that. Spiderone 10:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a list of record attendances be notable but not this list of actual attendance? Is there any evidence that such a list is "notable" under the Wiki rules you seem to believe are so sacred? It seems like you're just making things up as you go along. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the previous point, firstly, it is going to be out of date next season in any case. Does this mean all the current data gets scrapped and replaced with new data next season? The article doesn't make it clear which season it's really even talking about. If this topic really is notable then it probably should be done on a season per season basis rather than just binned and then reincarnated every time the season changes. Lastly, this article does nothing more than mirror what StadiumDB and ESPN puts up. Is there enough evidence from other sources too? Spiderone 19:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; the topic has not received significant attention from secondary sources to qualify for a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2016 (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.