Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 all minus the goalscorer ones which are in a separate AFD. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006

[edit]
La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This AFD applies to fourteen articles; namely those on the following templates excluding La Liga - 2006/2007, Serie A 2006-07 and the two goalscorers articles (these latter two come under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers)

2006/2007 Serie A Results

September | October | November | December | January | February | March | April | May
Goalscorers

2006/2007 La Liga Results

August | September | October | November | December | January | February | March | April | May | June
Goalscorers

These are almanac material only, not encyclopedic material. Per what Wikipedia is not, they are not articles but merely a list of stuff. They are a news archives with way too much data for Wikipedia.

For precedents see:

--Robdurbar 17:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Keep - This is information that needs to be on Wikipedia. I don't see anything unencylopedic about it. I would just like to comment on the timing of the delete after all the effort various people have put in for four months in maintaining these pages, why a delete discussion couldn't have been done far earlier. Niall123 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why this "needs to be on Wikipedia?" David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)
    • Comment Definition of Encyclopedia: "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.". The information that we are adding is referenced and well organised information which could be viewed as useful. How this information strays from the meaning of the word encyclopedia I don't know. You should try to go on the internet to find detailed results of matches from the internet as we were doing and discover how hard it actually is to find such detailed information. I also put the word comprehensive in bold. More detail is what we need here and not less.Niall123 13:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as David Spalding noted, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you look at WP:NOT, you can see the fifth comma saying that "almanac style information - such as lists of results or goalscorers - is not acceptable for Wikipedia. (...) Exceptions are made for major tournaments, such as the FIFA World Cup, Olympic Games, Wimbledon or Tour de France.". NBA, Bundesliga and La Liga are no way comparable to such events, in my opinion. --Angelo 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that that addition to WP:NOT is fairly recent. I'm not saying that lessens it per se, but its worth noting. --Robdurbar 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Retain -. The information is encyclopaedic, they are major world leagues. We have lists of all sorts of things on WP - palindromes, English historical counties. Just being a list does not mean something is not encyclopaedic. If you delete the results you should delete all sorts of lists on astronomy, geography and so on as they probably appear in Whittaker's Almanac. The whole point of WP is that it is definitive and detailed. If they were the Wakefield & District Sunday league results fair enough, but please everybody stop your tiresome and objectionable campaign against sport articles. If you wanted to delete it, have the decency to say at the start of the season. I don't know who updates them but it probably takes them forever. I 'don't come to WP to find' a lot of things, it doesn't mean they should all be deleted. Mjefm 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "we're half way through the season" argument doesn't really work. Lots of people put in a lot of effort on lots of articles that get deleted. It's unfortunate but people only list articles when they notice they're there. I suspect a lot of people voting delete would not have expected to find such info on Wikipedia.
As for claiming that this is something against sports articles - well I could tell you that I began the articles on Georg Totschnig, England national football team (B) and Barrow AFC, am one of the main contributors to England national football team, Steve Claridge, Ade Gardner, Michael Knighton and Millom RLFC and have worked a lot on Tour de France and European Nations Cup (rugby union), to name but a few. --Robdurbar 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Retain: I agree with the WP code; but then we should decide what's the meaning of "important tournament", since NBA, NHL, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, Premier League are all important tournaments in their sports. I think that by taking only major tournaments' results this remains an encyclopedia; it would become an almanac if we'd list ALL results. (What next, propose for deleting all F1 race reports?) Asendoh 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are around teweny grand prixs a year and many articles contain a detailed summary of the race and its surroundings. The difference here is that we are creating large articles that are not "information on knowledge" (from Encyclopedia) but are sports news archives. --Robdurbar 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Please review AfD discussion guidelines before leaving a comment. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Keep as per points already addressed with the word "retain", it looks like the articles were only put up for deletion because the editor is not interested in the sport. - Deathrocker 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That second point is just nonesense. I have edited and created a number of football and sport related articles. Did you read my post above? --Robdurbar 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Niall, read WP:NPA. This discussion will not be served by you taking swipes at other editors and their presumed motives. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll remove my comment. Niall123 00:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is many article about a football club by season, they also list out many details, or even more than the league by season. the league by season (by month) include result, goalscorers, cards is ok, The other international event like World Cup Qualifying also have these information. Amlost of match is not a reason. Or i would suggest merge back to one article, but it would very large. Matthew_hk tc 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Duper Delete. "Hey mom, look at the pretty page I made on wikipedia today" Get rid of this crap for all reasons in the NOM and let's stick to writing articles. This is an ENCYCLOPDIA MiracleMat 07:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a highly misleading statement. I had added the content very recently based on an apparent developing consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and the premier league reuslts afd. However, given that I had also proposed such articles for deletion, I agreed that I had been hasty in adding it myself, due to the possible conflict of interest, and so pulled it back down. However, the current consensus at the talk page appears to be to include it. --Robdurbar 15:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell there is no real concencus on that talk page and that the best thing that could be done in such a situation is to continue the debate regarding the Almanac classification. As on editor pointed out, the original draft of "Almanac" took in a lot more than just sports results. And surely since a number of editors have based their arguements in this delete/keep discussion on that paragraph then surely they are invalid arguements ? Niall123 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one vote has mentioned it explicitly. The alamanc inclusion in WP:NOT is a clarification of policy, not a new addition to the policy. --Robdurbar 13:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would make articles of hundereds of kilobytes in length. --Robdurbar 13:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each Round's results could easily be hidden within a collapsable template which could be opened if and when a person wants to view the information. Just check out the way the table at the end of each week is done in the Serie A results. Niall123 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The template does nothing to address the page size. All the data is still downloaded. And, I will scratch out my previous statement. Neier 14:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all - A League's month-by-month history is encylcopedic.gigatotti 6:04, 31 December 2006
  • Weak Keep - Sometimes the best way to record history is in lists of data. However, the data should be better integrated with related contents in addition to their corresponding main pages such as the teams and players in question. akuyumeTC 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all per precedent, and an actual policy comment. I have been seeing this type of article more and more recently, but there is never an assertion of notability or adequate sourcing (here the only sources are from the league itself). For that matter, there is no context. What is the significance of the data? For plot summaries (see WP:NOT) we require that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Why should we require less of sporting events? Dekimasu 14:55, 2 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/La_Liga_2006/2007_results_December_2006&oldid=1068863167"