Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungarian football clubs in European competitions

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 keep. (Non-admin closure) Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian football clubs in European competitions

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

Uni-directionally infinite list of sports statistics; seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BenTels (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not infintie or indiscriminate, as it is both finite and discriminate. Obviously notable for a team to compete in a European tornament (see English clubs in European football, for example). Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The way I understand it, the idea behind the list is to list all Hungarian football clubs that participate(d) in any European competitions by year from 1955 onwards until either Hungary ceases to exist or time stops. Hence unidirectionally infinite. Whether or not that is indiscriminate I guess is a point of view. -- BenTels (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same could be said for any list, such as List of Presidents of the United States (at this time, we have no reason to assume that the presidency will be dissolved nor that the United States will cease to exist), so are you saying that we should delete List of Presidents of the United States as well? </facetious> – PeeJay 10:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: No, but then I do not consider List of Presidents of the United States to be indiscriminate; it is an addendum to President of the United States, which has the weight of being a (very) notable topic. This list is tracking a sports statistic. Note that it is not an addendum to an article about a club or anything like that -- it is just a standalone sports statistic listing.
      Please note that I am not objecting to the length of the article. My problem is that it is a sports statistic, which to me seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- BenTels (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - But this article isn't indiscriminate at all. Teams have to qualify to take part in European competition. Granted, they do this every year, but it's still not easy to become one of the top teams in any country and thereby qualify for continental competition. – Pee Jay 15:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        And if the article were about a specific team, I'd say such a list would be a fair addition as a listing of their achievements. But it isn't. This list (and let's be honest, this is not an article but a list pretending to be an article) is just a tracking of a sports statistic, nothing more. It's not part of a notable topic, it isn't a notable topic itself, it's just a sports statistic listing. -- BenTels (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator's rationale for deleting this article is invalid. The article definitely needs improving in terms of format, layout and sourcing, but it is not deletable. – Pee Jay 10:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improving, not deleting - the English equivalent article is a good format to copy. Giant Snowman 11:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid nomination. This article actually needs improving, especially with format, layout and sourcing. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE as noted above, and I can't find anything wrong with this article except that it needs some improvements. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's rational is invalid here. It needs a lot of work, especially sourcing and format, but that is really not an issue. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:58, 10 August 2012 (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.