Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006

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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA Premier League results December 2006

FA Premier League results December 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Way more detail than necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia; this is not a news archive. A precedent for removing month by month results has been set by two recent similar AfD's - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBA Results November 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

• FA Premier League results August 2006
• FA Premier League results September 2006
• FA Premier League results October 2006
• FA Premier League results November 2006

Dsreyn 14:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the policy that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information and the reasoning at the NHL and NBA result AfDs, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per reasoning cited above and previously. Punkmorten 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to FA Premier League 2006-07 article, there is only a results table there. Maybe a format like these monthly results articles will be good. Changing vote to Keep as these results pages are an important part of the results table on FA Premier League 2006-07, linking to the various rounds of play in the League. It is important for users wanting to know about the timeline of the games. typhoonchaser 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all Possibly useful information which does not necessarily deserve an article on it's own but may not require deletion. A merge to FA Premier League 2006-07, as mentioned by Typhoonchaser another article, should do. Insanephantom 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - surely this would be far too much information to merge into one page? Every other month-by-month page results has gone. Next step, by the way, is to look at the goalscorers articles taht are cropping up. --Robdurbar 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, make external links to such sports sites that cover this better. We're an encyclopedia, not a data dump. >Radiant< 10:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All, per WP:NOT Kingjamie 13:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. HornetMike 13:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All. Wikipedia is not a statistics database. Oldelpaso 14:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - for virtually all the reasons mentioned above. Leave detail like this to RSSSF. - fchd 14:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as per precedent, nominator and NeoChaosX. Qwghlm 14:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, Wikipedia is not ESPN/BBC Sport/etc. – Elisson • T • C • 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all ... "with extreme prejudice," as CAPT Willard was told. WP is not a collection of information, and I certainly don't come to WP to find sports results, timely information on schedules, blah blah blah. This is also arguably promotion as it is serving as a marketing information resource for professional(?) sports. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above along with similar articles for Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Spain, France and England (2) - many of which are no longer being updated in any event. Forbsey 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. If you're looking for sports scores, go to Yahoo!, ESPN, or a dedicated sports statistics database site, like Retrosheet. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is information that should be on Wikipedia. Niall123 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Care to explain why? The delete voters have all cited Wikipedia policies and guidelines as reasons for their votes. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
• Merge All - Yes it's too much info and more pages than necessary, but surely 1 merged page for the whole season is fine? The 06-07 season page has a results table, why not show the results? It's been done for World Cups and suchlike. If it is merged into one page (or put onto the 06-07 season page) then it should be cut down considerably. Whilding87 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please review AfD discussion guidelines before leaving a comment. We need arguments, perspective. Thanks!! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree these articles should be deleted. Wiki is not Grandstand. However the difference between these articles and the FA Cup Qualifying rounds article is significant. These articles are fancruft, the latter is a one off piece of information giving a record of results which will not be added to. These articles are duplicated all over the internet but Wiki works best when Wiki supplies (and gives the opportunity to supply) extra to the ordinary level of information. doktorb _words^deeds 08:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Couldn't these results pages have been deleted months ago when they were actually started, instead of now when a lot of hard work has gone into creating them? Bababoum 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparently, nobody's noticed that it needs deletion at that time. Most of us probably don't care how much work someone puts into this articles, only whether it meets the criteria for AfDing, that's all... Insanephantom 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The August and September ones were nominated for deletion before, but there was a consensus there for "Keep" at the time. Link is here. typhoonchaser 05:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep all - These articles meet all WP policies, and are useful and interesting. We are not short of server space so why delete articles that may well attract new readers? BlueValour 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to one page, but probably not FA Premier League 2006-07 as it would overwhelm the rest of the info on that page. Neier 11:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Good point, but where can it be merged to? A single article with all the results may attract another AfD... Insanephantom 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Wikipedia isn't an all-soccer-related website. Delete also other similar lists (UEFA CL, etc.) Do you seriously think a guy would come searching on who scored on the Wigan-Charlton match on Wikipedia? No. --Howard the Duck 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is true that not very many people will come searching for who scored on the Wigan vs Charlton match, but it is also true that not many people will come searching for, say, the Little India metro station in Singapore or who the next King of Bhutan will be... typhoonchaser 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The next King of Bhutan is way more important than a Wigan vs. Charlton match (they're required reading for high school students that study Asian history). As for the Little India metro station, well, how about the the metro station below Madison Square Garden? They can be considered as equivalents. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment True, someone may not enter WP searching for a results page, but readers could and arguably would find the pages under discussion from internal links off broad topic articles. My concern is, are these more detailed "results" pages necessary to understand the broad topic, or even admissible according to WP guidelines. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep all Concurring with David Spalding. Monthly results provide supporting information for the main season. Given the information provided users can use Wikipedia to access the summarized match reports or even official match reports. All the results are neatly linked from main FAPL 2006-07 season page so, this information is easily accessible to users.Tirupraveen 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep all - A League's month-by-month history is encylcopedic.gigatotti 6:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Punkmorten 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Dictionary.com gives a definition for Encyclopedic; "comprehending a wide variety of information; comprehensive". Month by month listings surely falls under a wide variety of information ? Niall123 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In a sports encyclopedia, yes. In a general-reference encyclopedia, no. Is a monthly sports scoresheet is what you would expect to find in an encyclopedia? Would Britannica carry a list of game results of all Major League Baseball games? I frankly think these types of information are suitable for world sporting championships, but for sporting events that occur every year, I guess this is too much. Would high school students research on the score of a Charlton-Wigan match? Perhaps what happened on the Juventus-Liverpool riot, but not necessarily the score of Wigan-Charlton matches (although I do think a list of historical scores of derbies will do). 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • So, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about everything but sports, or what? I'm confused. Neier 14:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
          • • Not that a Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about everything but sports, but you'd have to draw the line. Is a Wigan-Charlton match that important, say 10 years from now? I actually liked what the people did at 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season, where they posted only the key matchups (read: Chelsea-Man Utd. matches, local derbies, games among relegated teams, upsets). --Howard the Duck 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
          • No, not 'everything but sports', but I think the reasons for deletion are that it's according to WP:NOT, saying that WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Insanephantom 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The point being, that if it is notable enough to include in a sports encyclopedia, then it should be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Neier 14:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
          • A sports encyclopedia is not equal to Wikipedia. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
            • And I would further comment that encyclopedic does not equal everything about everything. I continue to feel that an article about the season, summarizing competitions, developments, overturns, whatever, would be encyclopedic. One critieria I use is "effort in writing," not to be confused with effort in formatting. IOW, if you spend an hour writing a narrative description of the season, fine. If you spent an hour copying results data in to a table, with no editorial discrimination, it's "almanac-like," and deviating from WP:NOT#IINFO. (BTW, I'm presuming that each of these pages has — or will have — verifiable information with references to back it up. If results pages don't reference their source, we have further reasons to merge/delete. Please don't counter, "But we all saw the match, it's in the news, it's common knowledge," etc. ;) ) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
            • All the matches have links to the original match report from Official English Premier league website. So, they do reference the original source.Tirupraveen 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Wikipedia isn't an all-soccer-related website, especially statistics of every match in history of football. I think an article for a season is enough. I can't imagine if after a lot of years we have such statistics for every month or such statistics of 20 years ago. And there is also danger to have such detailed information for every league in the world! --KRBN 13:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thing is, we don't have a summary of the results in the article for the season, so we need to merge the results to a page, in my opinion. And I suppose it's fine to have results of notable leagues (such as the English one)? If you could be so kind to explain the danger of having month-by-month detailed statistics, however naïve this question may seem...? typhoonchaser 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Much more sensible/acceptable to store results in the format used on the FA Premier League 2006-07 page i.e. neatly tabulated, scores only. QmunkE 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe that just a results table isn't enough. That's why these results pages were created, I think. Readers would expect maybe a brief summary of the game when they click on the wikilinks (which link to the results pages). Without these results pages, readers wanting to know about how the games went on would (maybe) be upset because the timelines of the games are gone. Just my thoughts... typhoonchaser 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Per nom. --DethFromAbove 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This debate is present on every WP that tried to write that kind of lists but the russian WP which puts an article per day i.e. on the curent NHL season. It would be better (in fact, it is urgent) to separate the raw data - which can be useful for the expert - from the data for learning - which is useful for everyone. Hope I didn't make too much mistakes. Kwak 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(why noone at Wikimedia Foundation had the idea to make a "Wikisports" ?)

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.