Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Davis Cup participants

List of Davis Cup participants

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

List of Davis Cup participants (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)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and isn't referenced, only reference is the official website and searching thru the Davis Cup website doesn't show any obvious place where this information is located. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Can't tell This gets more unclear the longer I look at it. On the plus side:

• There's nothing here that outright runs counter any of the guidelines at WP:NOTSTATS. This table seems to bear about the same relationship to Davis Cup as the pair provided as an example at that page - Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 vs 2012 United States presidential election; and table has plenty of notes and mouse-overs to explain categories and individual entries.
• I don't like it much, but WP is by now kind of comitted to carrying these Ye Grande Sports Almanack data-dumps. Davis Cup itself is pretty heavy on the stats tables, and that's not getting into football (shudder). Precedence is certainly there.

On the minus side:

• Isn't this just a table variant of all the material already presented at Davis Cup#Records and statistics? (as in, literally the entire section) Seems needlessly duplicative - either have one whopping table with all the info, or separate sub-sections that summarize parts. This would suggest either replacing the section content with the table, or deleting the table as surplus to requirements.

It clearly isn't just a variant. It contains ALL participants and ALL tiers of competition, not just the world group related stuff like it's mostly the case with DC article.Setenzatsu (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sourcing is decidedly insufficient. This is like citing a description of the climate of Hoboken to usgs.gov - the data are presumably in there somewhere but it's of no eartly use to the reader. But that could presumably be spruced up.

Then you have a problem with most of the national DC team articles. They (most of them) have team page at DC's official website listed, and not even as a reference but as an external link. So I would be right if I were to go and delete every DC national team article because it references nothing and directly breaches several wiki policies. I could even call out WP:OR. (90% of wiki admins don't understand the meaning of "original" but that's for another discussion). So those really don't follow rules but I don't see anybody AfD them. Setenzatsu (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• (Threats by author to flip out if things don't go their way are not helpful.)

Overall, I don't think it's a delete by virtue of failing basic guidelines, but I question its usefulness. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• I PRODded the article while reviewing new pages. It seemed like a clear NOTSTATS failure to me, along with an unlikely but possible WP:OR (I think this table probably exists somewhere, but I can't find the source.) We typically delete stats articles if they don't have any contextual prose, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 African Cup of Nations statistics, and the lack of a source is the other major issue. Didn't expect this one to be controversial at all. SportingFlyer T·C 01:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep You could definitely look at it like a stats article but it's a more comprehensive, detailed LIST like a Lists of 100 best books or List of films with LGBT characters. It contains every country that ever participated, every country that ever appeared in the WG, every now dissolved participants and some additional information that are a starting point. For example, if you are to look for information on which countries played 200+ matches how much time it would took to look for that? You have lists inside a list. Of course you could always look at it like a stats article (which list is by definition) but as it contains every participant ever, summarizes information in one place that is otherwise scattered it could serve as a reference point or a starting point of DC universe. Sure, you could separate it into sub-sections that summarize parts but you would increase bytes, wouldn't change the nature of the article and would loose cohesiveness. It's not like this table contains some ludicrous categories (column headers) - it's all standard basic information to give overall information and it's mostly contained in info boxes of each team's article. (forgot to sign it) Setenzatsu (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with Davis Cup. To be specific, clean up the table a bit and stick it in the Davis Cup records and statistics section. Stat articles are kind of a grey area, but after some digging around I don't see this meeting the list sourcing and stand-alone notability needed to be its own separate article. See also: WP:OSE. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with Davis Cup. I agree, it could be added to the stats already there. Dream Focus 19:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It was part of the DC article, but few of your kind deleted it and one I believe proposed to be made into it's own article.