Deletion of Football club attendances (2006)

Comment: Most delete rationales are variants of |"I don't like it": "I don't see value", "Cruft", yadda yadda. That me, you or other people can't "see value" doesn't mean it has none -you are trying to prove a negative. That said, entries of the tables are almost surely sourceable, and that they currently have little sourcing is not a reason to delete: if they were unsourceable at all, then it would be different. Warden correctly noted this is a germane almanac-like entry
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per . Intention of the list appears to be to combine attendances from different sports that are known as "football", whether that means Rugby football, American football, soccer or Aussie Rules. Lists of attendances for all sports or one sport would be encyclopedic, picking out some sports is listcruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: This is ''exactly'' the kind of reference information that people expect to find in a sports encyclopedia.  We have many other similar articles, see :Category:Sports attendance.  warns against "long and sprawling lists of statistics" but also endorses the use of "tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". If there is something specifically wrong with these "football club attendances" articles, that should be identified. Otherwise I can't see any reason to remove this kind of encyclopedic information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS)