Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Bears statistics

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. RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Bears statistics

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

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

This is a collection of trivial statistics, a clear violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolute failure of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: Is your concern at all based on partial duplication with List of Chicago Bears team records? Or do you view both as problematic? See also Category:American football team records and statistics. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I think the team records article has a better case for being kept, as it's at least specific about its scope. "Statistics" is too vague for an article, and I'd support grouping the other "(NFL team) statistics" pages in that category here as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I question whether NOTSTATSBOOK is the proper grounding. But I do believe this list is of dubious notability under WP:LISTN as we have no evidence that the subject "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as suggested by LISTN. I also have problem with the lack of cohesiveness of the topic, and also a concern that it represents WP:OR. Team records, on the other hand, appear to me to be a cohesive and legitimate list topic. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:NOTSTATS. Mostly trivial stats or records without clear verification. Ajf773 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is wrong to single out this article. Minnesota Vikings statistics, Los Angeles Rams statistics and maybe List of Carolina Panthers records and statistics deserve to be discussed along with this article. Despite the page name of Pittsburgh Steelers statistics, that content is more like a records article. I think these pages should be discussed jointly. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the other articles either (A) probably could also go through AFD or (B) are better sourced. I have no objection either way to including them in this AFD or creating new ones other than the delay that may come up. But we can handle a delay, there is no deadline. What say everyone else?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that all should be lumped together. For example, Pittsburgh Steelers statistics is really a "records" list and a well-sourced one. The instant article is quite different, and there is already a Bears' team records list at List of Chicago Bears team records. Cbl62 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2019 (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.