Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 World Cup Matches

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 no consensus. Ezeu 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 World Cup Matches

2007 World Cup Matches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. We have space for the results of all the matches at 2007 Cricket World Cup. We really don't need a page with complete scorecards for 51 matches. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: since WP:NOT#PAPER is the only reason for deletion that I see mentioned thus far... Neier 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepSince this are the full scorecards and can cover more--Thugchildz 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Hi! I am the person who created the page. True,a page on World Cup matches may seem cumbersome and unnecessary.However,it does make it much easier for contributing articles with statistical information.Ravichandar84 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this thing is kept, it really needs a renaming. It is not at all obvious from the title that we are dealing with cricket and not some other sport. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it doesn't contravene the stated policy (and I can't find any other policy it contravenes), but rename (as per last comment, insert "cricket" somewhere) and wikify. Personally I think it's pretty cumbersome and an external reference to something like cricinfo would be easier (as most other cricket articles seem to do) --Deon Steyn 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't contravene any of those policies since:
    • it is not a list of loosely associated topics (all the matches are closely associated with each other and don't just happen to be cricket matches)
    • it is not an article on genealogical or phonebook entries
    • it is not a directory, list of directory entries, tv/radio guide, or a resource for conducting business
    • it is not a list of frequently asked questions
    • it is not a travel guide
    • it is not a memorial
    • it is not an instruction manual
    • it is not an internet guide
    • it is not a reproduction of a textbook or annotated textbook
    • it is not a plot summary
    • it is not a lyrics database.
Thus far there are no real reasons for deletion other than that it is thought to take up space (which doesn't really matter since Wikipedia is not space-limited and not a paper encyclopaedia). I've voted keep and given another very obvious and good reason to keep this article below (though the article should be re-named).72.27.8.49 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reason to duplicate all the scorecards here. Tintin 10:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Ozzykhan 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Does this page: 2007 Cricket World Cup Statistics need to proded as well? - Ozzykhan 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The stats might eventually find a place in the overall report of the tournament as a whole. If someone wants to update them day by day and then put them across into the main World Cup report, then fine. But the article shouldn't in my view be regarded as a long-term survivor. Johnlp 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment.Do review the History statistics for the page for the time the changes were made.You will find that the statistics are being updated as the match progresses.RegardsRavichandar84 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not needed. Link to cricinfo or CricketArchive where match is mentioned in text. I suspect some of the matches are going to be distinctly non-notable, too. ;-) Johnlp 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Regretful delete - while this isn't a paper encyclopaedia, I do question the usefulness of this, particularly with very decent external links providing identical information and, as such, being reliable sources for such events. The Rambling Man 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - has no usefulness, it will just be a recreation of a scorecard from a newspaper, or cricinfo or bbc.co.uk or any news/cricket site. Unless it contains prose on the happenings of each match, in my opinion it has no longevity here other than for the duration of the tournament. Therefore, I recommend deletion. –MDCollins (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article does not violate any Wikipedia policy (see list of what the article is not above in response to the stated policies that the article supposedly violated) and the usefulness of an article is a subjective decision and not a proper way for determining whether an article should be deleted or not (think of Pokemon and other such articles which are only useful to the people who care or even know about such things). If you do not find an article useful, it doesn't necessarily mean that the articles isn't useful to other people. Besides all that if this article is deleted then so should the following articles: 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group B, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group C, etc. (with articles all the way down to 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group H). Now if the FIFA World Cup can have main articles about its matches, even though there are numerous other websites on the internet to which persons could be referred to instead a la Cricinfo, then why shouldn't the Cricket World Cup? Any deletion of this article without a move to delete the corresponding football articles constitutes a double-standard.72.27.8.49 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - title is wrong; content is primary source material. An article that discusses the matches in prose would be great. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. So if the title is wrong, why delete? why not rename? And what's the point of deleting the article when it could simply be re-written to discuss the matches in prose? And what is the problem with primary source material? This is an encyclopaedia and such material is also found in articles on Football World Cup matches?72.27.8.49 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic. As ALoan says, prose article linking to external scorecards at Cricinfo etc would be perfect. Even this monstrosity of an article doesn't (quite) go into the level of detail that this would. --Dweller 11:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The 2006-07 Biathlon World Cup is not truly comparable to this article, since it deals with the tournament as a whole. The Biathlon article is more comparable to the 2007 Cricket World Cup article or the 2006 FIFA World Cup article, not to articles detail matches/events of either of those tournaments.72.27.8.49 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - For all the reasons stated previously: It does not violate any of the WP:NOT policies (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY are not applicable - check the criteria properly), and in fact is exactly the kind of data that would be found in a traditional encyclopaedia (thus "not encyclopaedic" is not a valid argument against inclusion either). User 72.27.8.49's comment re: the FIFA World Cup entries being allowed to stand is valid - either all must stay or all must go. Proponents of deletion clearly can't even agree on whether producing a scorecard is primary source material, whether it is duplication of a source, or whether it requires attribution to, or validation from, a source! In view of their contradictory comments - obviously based purely on each person's personal interpretation of the WP guidelines - the scorecards pages for sports events should stay until and unless specific clarification is made 'officially' by WP. However I totally agree that this page must be renamed to include the word 'cricket', since there are world cup championships in several sports. I believe 2007 Cricket World Cup Matches would be the most sensible title. - 158.143.133.150 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I consider it is duplication of primary source information, and horribly formatted, not up-to-date and hard-to-read duplication at that. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY states: other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. As a cricket fan, a scorecard is useful, but only in the normally formatted way, which other sites do much better than wiki does. Maybe it belongs in Wikisource, if at all? The-Pope 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Well, if you read the discussion page for the article, you'll see why the page is not up-to-date. Having had the article listed as being considered for deletion, the author hasn't touched it since, so why complain about the article not being up-to-date when this very process is what basically drove the author away? I agree that the page could be re-done so as to make it more reader-friendly (rather like the FIFA pages), but that doesn't require deletion. As a true cricket fan you could contribute to correcting the page rather than just sitting back and deleting it. I doubt the FIFA fans out there who wrote the various world cup match pages would have even dreamed about letting such articles be deleted simply because they were badly written initially. It probably won't matter anyway as User 158.143.133.150 rightly points out that the proponents of deletion can't agree on what the page is, much less what policy it ever violated, but seeing as how so many people seem set against the page, for some reason or another (usually out of personal consideration) then the article will probably end up being deleted. It's a shame that the info couldn't at least be merged with the 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage and the author convinced to contribute to that page since this seems headed for deletion.72.27.85.98 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think that the summary information on 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage is much more appropriate than trying to replicate full scorecards, which are better represented on other sites. Isn't the fact that no-one can agree on what the page is trying to be justification for its deletion? What is the value of keeping this page? The-Pope 03:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment – I think that page (2007 Cricket World Cup group stage) pretty much settles the debate... let's dump this one and keep that one which is in a more correct format (summary and comment that adds value, not just scorecard). --Deon Steyn 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment "No-one can agree on what the page is trying to be.."? Actually all the people, including the author, who voted to keep the page know what the page is supposed to be. It's an article on the individual matches of the 2007 cricket world cup, since the information that would be needed for the article would make the main article on the 2007 tournament very long. If you read through the debate, you'll see, as User 158.143.133.150 says, that the only ones who don't agree on what the page is are the ones voting for deletion. They get bogged down in trying to decide whether or not the page violates any policy or whether it is "primary source material, duplication of a source, or whether it requires attribution to, or validation from, a source". Also is there anything in wikipedia's deletion policy that says that if nobody can agree on a page then it should be deleted? If so then many more pages have an even greater justification for deletion. The value of keeping the page was already outlined in the fact that the FIFA world cup 2006 tournaments have analagous pages i.e. it's a page that gives details that would detract from the main article's readability. If the page can be formatted properly, then do so. If the page can be reformatted, but a suitable alternative exists, then the procedure is to merge and redirect, not delete.72.27.85.98 16:28, 17 March 2007 (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.