Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOAT Index

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

GOAT Index

[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!

GOAT Index (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)

There is no indication of the encyclopaedic relevance of this arcane formula or that it has gained any traction outside of a one-time usage by ESPN in 2017. The article details the purpose of this "index" and how it is calculated but there is nothing about its impact on the world. In fact, it doesn't even seem like ESPN used the same formula as detailed in the article and theirs was a mere opinion poll. – PeeJay 13:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be somewhat unencyclopedic. If this was a more widely used measure I could be persuaded to keep, but seems like a formula someone made up one day. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'm unsure. The mathematics behind it may be of note, but I'd like a math guru to weigh in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Paulmcdonald: Not sure if I count as a math guru (I'm a PhD student in statistics), but the second formula essentially does the following:

1. Calculate, for different metrics, each player's value on that metric as a percentage of the average value across all players;
2. Take an average of those percentages.

The first formula is very similar, but it's more like a weighted average of percentages (it's not quite that, but it's the same as that up to multiplying by a constant). In other words, I can't see anything particularly notable about the maths behind the formulae. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 09:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete my concerns are addressed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Only two of the independent references are about this particular index (rather than just regular GOAT articles); one of those is a blog and the other is a local radio station piece. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. GOAT Index seems like a play on ESPN statistics (NBA and NFL) and put into a formula by a fan who loves numbers. Though sportcasters credit this person and use the term, it is like quoting an opinion rather than a solid mathematical evidence of a player's overall career performance. Though seems fancy with a quantitative data, it is not peer reviewed by statisticians. GOAT Index as a metric is questionable.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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.