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. There was a clear community consensus that this article should be deleted. The majority view was that the page was fundamentally defective and/or misconceived. However the case was not made that the concept of the page, in its latter shortened form, was against policy. Consequently if it were rewritten in a fully sourced form and with both criteria for inclusion and with explanatory text that places the table in context then I would not consider it a recreation. TerriersFan (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League team performances

[edit]

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

Contested PROD; original rational was "Complete violation of WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS". Giant Snowman 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't the UEFA coefficient article give a better comparison of how teams have performed in past champions league seasons? It's official, whereas this system seems rather arbitrary. Format makes it very difficult to tell what's going on, let alone if it were updated for all the teams that have ever played in the champions league. Delusion23 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the internet before suggesting for deletion Please list me a single internet link from where you can get the team performances in UEFA champions league. I was searching for the same and was found to be necessary. It is not easy to go through each year and get the performances and do the comparison. Also I have added a pointing system to find out the best team of the decade and wanted to extend it to other years which is not given any where. I expect all of you to give suggestions for improvement of the article rather than just commenting on the deletion. If visibility is a problem, we can only include the teams that had at least qualified once for the QF or knockout stage.

-- Fahidka (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official rating system - the UEFA coefficient - tracks club performance. Giant Snowman 14:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Coeficient says whether team had qualified or not in UEFA champions league and does not tell anything on how far they have proceeded in the prestigious UEFA champions League. The article is intended only on UEFA champions league not on overall club performances. I believe there is no system presently to indicate the same. For eg. from 2004-08, club coefficient rated Chelsea as a best team which is not indicative of their performance in UEFA champions league. Fahidka (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the "best" team - that's surely completely subjective, which violates no original research. There's absolutely no need for a list like this, at all. Giant Snowman 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about an already listed part on UEFA coefficient - [1] & indicating the same as not related to the team's performances in UEFA champions league. If that is subjective, please remove the contents from the above link also. Presently there is no system to compare team performance in UEFA champions league or a list of performance of single team's list over various years. Please give me a link to show Arsenal's or chelsea's performance in champions league, listing how far they have reached in each year. Fahidka (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that information need to be presented in a list? And why only certain teams, and not others? Please read WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NPOV. Giant Snowman 15:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's every match Arsenal have ever played in Europe. Anyway, the fact that information might be useful is not on its own valid reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is a potentially massive list of statistics, statistics which are already reported on Wikipedia in a variety of places. The page in and of itself adds little and may even constitute original research as a new synthesis of material. The ranking system is also unnecessary but even without this on the page, the page should still be deleted. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List is a better way of representing performances and comparing the same. I was searching for how Arsenal had performed over last 10 years in UEFA champions league. I was completely struck up. I have to go through 10 pages in wikipedia to get this information. If I want to compare it with performances of Man Utd, Chelsea and liverpool what am I need to do??? I was totally messed up and felt it is very critical which triggered me to make this article..Don't you think it is essential? Reg..And why only certain teams??? I agree we need to include all and I was not finished, that is why I have kept the Expand tag so that others can help me on the same but I was wondered to see the delete tag here. Let us keep the teams who had atleast qualified for QF as a criteria of listing here. Ok..Usefulness is only the criteria. I agree. Then please delete article related to premier league each year which you can get from the premier league page. Fahidka (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Arsenal's European record is available at List of Arsenal F.C. seasons. Other teams have a page for their European record, such as Arsenal F.C. in Europe which would also do the job. Just because a list is possible, doesn't mean it should exist. Brad78 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea of summarising team performances in a single table is not original research and does not violate WP:NOTSTATS, which simply says tables are preferable to lists of statistics.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the section which uses a points-based rating system which has been determined by one user and one user only isn't OR? Huh, interesting. Giant Snowman 16:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I deliberately did not say that. If that is OR it can be removed without affecting the principal content of the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There we go, I removed it without having to delete the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, returning to the table itself (if that is what you mean by the "principal content") - where is the key, of both colours and teams? What is it about these teams that means they deserve mention, and not others? And what is the point of having massive gaps in the table? Giant Snowman 16:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I remove the rest of the content, as that is also "unsourced, appears to be original research"...? Giant Snowman 16:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on the same..."And why only certain teams??? I agree we need to include all and I was not finished, that is why I have kept the Expand tag so that others can help me on the same but I was wondered to see the delete tag here. Let us keep the teams who had atleast qualified for QF as a criteria of listing here. Fahidka (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The table is intended to show how each team performed in each season. Wikipedia is full of such tables which provide information that would only otherwise be available by checking many individual articles (for example at 2010 Formula One season#Results and standings). You might make an argument it should be merged with another article, but it is not WP:OR and it does not violate WP:NOTSTATS, its incompleteness is a reason to improve it, not delete it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take your points - but where are the references for each teams performance? And again, what is the actual point of such a comparison table? Giant Snowman 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with Tennis. Please check what this article is doing -- 2011 ATP World Tour though there are each individual tournament has separate page. Do anybody suggest to delete this as the contents are available in all the other pages?? Same is applicable to this page. Fahidka (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References??? Please check the links given on the each year which points to wikipedia articles on corresponding to each year UEFA champions league. Fahidka (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article; also, Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles. Giant Snowman 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references can be copied to this article. You haven't given a valid reason to delete it either - how about we all shut-up let other editors have a say :-) ?--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, we're going round in circles aren't we? Giant Snowman 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered how the football articles seem to be incomplete in wikipedia whereas tennis articles are almost perfect. Now I could understand. Here more thought is put on how to delete an article than how can we make it better. Tried maximum to convince & I quit!! Sorry. Giant, please carry on with your deletion. Fahidka (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and redundancy to UEFA coefficient. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Delusion23 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided at the moment, but leaning toward delete. On the one hand, I get the idea and it might be useful. But, it's a disaster at this point and it is listcruft. Digirami (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is original interpretation of statistical data. We are not here to host people's lookup charts. The material in question already exists in the form of coefficient rankings on existing pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure and unadulterated Wp:LISTCRUFT. This list is incomplete and would be just too unwieldy once completed. Brad78 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the UEFA Coefficient is the right list. This is the wrong list. That there is an article that much better covers this content makes this page redundant. A grid of performances for hundreds of teams is utterly unmanageable. Fortunately the people that make websites about the Coefficient do an absolutely excellent job for those who can be bothered to use the internet. MLA (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list might be useful if there is a better way to present the information. Right now the list has too many problems: it has no lead, it's too wide and unreadable, it needs a key to explains the abbreviation and colors (R16, FIN, MUN, etc), the use of flag at the table header violates WP:MOSFLAG, the colors used need more contrast (please see WP:COLOR), and it's completely unreferenced. Moreover, the Individual Performers section contradict the article title which clearly says .. team performances and should be removed. Also, I don't recall that the group stage being referred as round of 32 in the media. While most of these issues are easy to fix, I still think there is no way to reduce the width of the table without losing the information. Even though we can only include the teams that had at least qualified once for the QF or knockout stage, there will still be too many clubs and the table will be much wider when the list is completed. Therefore, I'm leaning towards delete, unless there is a significant improvement on the readability. — MT (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you expanded to include the European Cup (which is the same competition) you have 14 teams from England alone (Arsenal, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Burnley, Chelsea, Derby County, Everton, Leeds Utd, Liverpool, Manchester Utd, Newcastle Utd, Nottingham Forest, Tottenham, and Wolves). Once you include every UEFA nation it becomes total cruft. The usage of the made-up points system violates WP:OR. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it has been published by reliable sources and widely used then fair enough, but this certainly hasn't. There is no lead, the table is stretched, the colours are hideous, there is no key, flags are being misused and there are no references. It violates WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:COLOR, WP:MOSFLAG, to name just a few. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, misused flags and colours, there's a good reason to delete. Imagine if this article was improved to its best possible state - what would be the reasons to delete it then? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is still completely unreferenced, it favours certain clubs for no reason and it's WP:LISTCRUFT. If I created List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players who have scored an own goal then it would be deleted without hesitation because it's trivial and isn't published in reliable sources. This is no different. If it becomes widely used like UEFA coefficient then I would concede, but it won't. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If the article is improved visually and has citations added it may be a useful collation of data that are otherwise only available after trawling through lots of individual articles. Delusion23 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 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.