Volleyball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's volleyball team squads : The relevant tournament is a valid article, and "[Country] at the 2023 Pan American Games" is also probably viable, but no reliable source is going to examine the totality of each team's roster in detail.  Delete all, as they are not viable search terms either.  Bundling eight articles that are all lists of team rosters at Pan-American games.  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people .  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Basketball at the 2011 Pan American Games – Men's team rosters ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Basketball at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's team rosters ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's team squads ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Handball at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's team rosters ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Basketball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Women's team rosters ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Football at the 2023 Pan American Games – Women's team squads ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Basketball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's team rosters ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note that in the past, there was an editorial decision to split these roster articles from the main tournament article as it was considered too long for the main page - the sub-articles do not necessarily need to pass notability requirements due to this - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handball at the Goodwill Games for a similar example and explanation.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : I'm unaware of more general discussions about rosters, but the arguments from the handball AfD don't apply here.  The outcome there was appropriate because the results of the handball tournaments at each individual game were considered encyclopedic information that was aggregated by sport rather than by year.  I submit that an exhaustive roster at a tournament that isn't the highest level of a sport isn't encyclopedic at all, no matter how it's sliced.  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 22:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball , Football , Canada , Latin America , South America ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just a note, Vanamonde , that Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's team squads still needs to be AFD tagged and creator notified.  L iz Read!  Talk!  04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the football ones as there looks to be good sourcing; no views on the others. Giant Snowman 19:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : There is routine coverage of each team's announced roster, but that doesn't establish the encyclopedic nature of a giant table of every team's roster. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 20:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deleting absolutely all articles due to supposedly lack of verification does not seem plausible to me. Only articles that clearly lack sources should be eliminated. Svartner ( talk ) 23:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is common to have those squad pages and they are (mostly) sourced. Kante4 ( talk ) 00:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's many articles like this for big sporting events; if this is unacceptable, the discussion should start somewhere else. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Nfitz. If such articles are not wanted a broader discussion is needed. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 21:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there is a clear consensus to Keep these articles (and no support for Deletion), I don't see anyone challenging the nominator's main argument that these articles violate WP:NOTDATABASE . Relisting to see if the argument is forthcoming. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all: Subject is a clear violation of WP:NOTDATABASE as at their core these articles are factual yet provide no context. Just because it is common to have articles like this on wikipedia doesn't mean that they meet the relevant policies. Don't see any plausible redirect either. User:Let'srun 04:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a failure of NOTDATABASE at all - the articles clearly explain what they're about (e.g. This article shows the rosters of basketball teams competing at the 2011 Pan American Games ... The Canada team, made up of 11 players, is listed in the below table – that's clearly understandable) – and NOTDATABASE itself states Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context . Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. These follow NOTDATABASE exactly. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it does not. The essence of NOTDATABASE is context, not formatting: the relevant sentence is the early one, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources."  Statistics that can be framed by encyclopedic prose are acceptable. Statistics that will never be more than a table without any further context are not suited to Wikipedia. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I have yet to see any coverage of these teams that are more than announcements, but if there is any I guarantee it is more relevant to the "[Country] at the [YYYY] Pan American Games" articles than to this listing of every team's roster. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But it does, though – NOTDATABASE is meant to exclude mass listings of poorly-sourced statistics that are not given context (i.e. made understandable to the average person) – the articles definitely explain what they are (e.g. This article shows the rosters of all participating teams at the men's basketball tournament at the 2011 Pan American Games in Guadalajara, Mexico. Rosters can have a maximum of 12 players. ) and NOTDATABASE states that large amounts of relevant stats that are explained should be spun-out in separate articles , giving a very similar article in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election as an example of something that would be acceptable. And additionally, as Nfitz stated above, articles such as these have long been regarded as acceptable, so AFD shouldn't be sufficient consensus to overturn such precedent; an RFC should take place if you do not believe the encyclopedia should have this type of work. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These article don't demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of their subject, which is the essence of WP:NOT. Context is not just comprehension. I could upload my university's internal sports records as an article, and they would be perfectly comprehensible, but still a violation of NOTDATABASE. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 22:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability ought to come into play as well: the Pan American Games are a major international sports competition; your school's sports records, likely not so much (although some coverage could be warranted depending on the notability of said university's teams, like we do at, e.g., Georgia Bulldogs football statistical leaders ). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes of course notability comes into play. The games are notable, as I've said above, and sub-articles organized by sport or by country are probably also notable. The team rosters are not, and nobody has demonstrated any such notability. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We'll have to disagree on whether notability has been demonstrated; I still hold that they have been, as NOTDB states that if the main article is notable, it is often appropriate to split it out into sub-articles when there are large amounts of statistics ( statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. ). I also don't believe that a lone AFD would be sufficient consensus to overturn a long-standing precedent of these types of articles; an RFC would be better. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all as violations of WP:NOTDB . The sporting side of Wikipedia is not exempt from list standards. I will acknowledge, as some other editors have commented above, that an RfC may be required here as these articles seem to be symptoms of a larger issue. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 00:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mind explaining how it fails NOTDB instead of just plain asserting that it does? As the criterion states that [As statistics can be confusing]; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context . Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article – that is saying that lengthy statistics, when explained and put into tables (as in this case), are to be split out into articles like this, and it cites a very similar example in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election as an example of what would be an appropriate pass of it. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition to what Vanamonde93 said above, I'll also add that the encyclopedic value of statistics is informed by their coverage in reliable sources. The difference between the list in the policy and the lists being considered for deletion here is that the first one has widespread, direct coverage of the subject in dozens of sources — the list is in fact about how many sources had conducted opinion polls on the election — whereas the sources that have covered the subjects of these teams rosters are also all primary sources. NOTDB does indeed recommend splitting unwieldy tables into separate articles, but when that split happens, the new article is subject to an individual assessment of notability — it does not inherit that from the main article. Again, the lack of coverage in reliable sources prevents these lists from being considered notable either. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 06:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Fits much better as its own article and these games are clearly relevant. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 15:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am in general agreement with BeanieFan11 about how NOTDB applies to this type of article. Perhaps the information would be better included in Volleyball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's tournament and not as a SPINOFF article and it would be helpful if there was some summary information in the lede about the primary topic. So, I am somewhere between a keep (for now if there is desire to hold an RFC about this type of stand-alone article) and a merge (either back into the parent articles or with additional material about the notability of the subject included in these articles).  -- Enos733 ( talk ) 05:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Despite what some users have asserted, notability is not inherited. Just because the Pan American Games are relevant doesn't make this not a violation of WP:NOTDB . Let'srun ( talk ) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The information on athletes participating in team sports is not random or disordered, it has sources of official documents from the respective organizing entities/confederations. It is also not redundant, as there is no space for this type of information in the main article. What would be the point of deleting such content? Svartner ( talk ) 14:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pending a wider discussion on the viability of all Squad list articles for such tournaments, of which there are a great many across various sports and events. Surely either all are fine or none are. Crowsus ( talk ) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all per nom. There is absolutely no content in these "articles" beyond the database listing of players. Any encyclopedic content about the games is already included in 2023 Pan American Games . Most of the Keep opinions I see here fall into the WP:WHATABOUTX/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category. Owen× ☎ 01:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't exactly say its "otherstuffexists"-category arguments; rather, its more of a "this has been accepted precedent for a decade-plus and so one AFD shouldn't be sufficient to overturn such a long-standing and major precedent that would impact many hundreds / thousands of other articles"-category argument. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now, per my previously expressed points regarding NOTDB (which states that it is often appropriate to split-out sourced / table-ized statistics from notable main articles) and my / others' concern over the lack of precedent for doing such actions / the necessity of an RFC on said issue.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all per nom.  There is absolutely no content in these articles beyond the database listing of players.  Wikipedia is not a database of sports stats.  the abundance of redlinks shows this can't be considered a navigation aid, any arguement based in CLN will be very thin.  // Timothy :: talk 13:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDB - there definitely isn't context for any of this information, and we are not a sports stats database.  I understand the argument that since there are many such other articles, we should have a broader discussion on these before deleting, but WP:OSE is not a strong argument, and also people often complain about mass deletion RfCs since the "proper venue is AfD".  Galobtter ( talk ) 01:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as not meeting WP:GNG .  No independent secondary sources exist for this subject.  Also violates WP:NOT for being a database entry.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:06, 26 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus