Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Milan squad
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. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A.C. Milan squad
- A.C. Milan squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
- FC Barcelona squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
This debate has occurred before. Here in Wikipedia we don't have individual articles for club squads. This is highly unnecessary and the squads already have a section in the club article. Punkmorten 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#INFO - unnecessary collection of information. --Angelo 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot argue about the contents. This is a group deletion and the articles' contents are quite different. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. The point here is the type of article itself, like Punkmorten proposed--ClaudioMB 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please stop your crusade? We are discussing about the need for standalone squad articles, so please accept what the Wikipedia community and users say. There's no need to answer to all the users supporting the deletion process, i.e. everyone but you. --Angelo 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, no, I'll not stop it, because I have the right to defend my point of view. Also, it's rude to ask some one to stop defend his point of view. Second, no one have to accept what the community and users say, if what they are saying has no base. This is not a voting, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one." from WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette. Third, for sure there is need to answer all points, it's the only way to argue against that point. Finally, remember, just because I'm alone here, that does not mean I'm wrong. --ClaudioMB 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, maybe I'm too biased to say something different, but you look more like attacking point of views of the others rather than defending yours. Anyway, let's stop it here, just let me lend you my hand with a possible proposal: why don't you make an attempt to create an article about the current FC Barcelona season as well as I did for US Palermo and include your own table? Football seasons for top-level teams are known to be absolutely notable, so don't worry about AfDs in the case. --Angelo 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, I'm not attacking, I'm contra arguing a PoV that is 100% against my PoV. Totally ok in a discussion. Second, thanks for you suggestion, as I said to Resolute below, I'm think to write some thing about the current squad, even though I prefer tables and data. Unfortunately, for the following days I won't have much time, I don't know if I will able to write before this AfD close. Maybe you could help on this, you write very well. Anyway, I still believe the way the article is now makes it valid. Finally, yes, I need to improve my keep argument below, I'll do it.--ClaudioMB 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, maybe I'm too biased to say something different, but you look more like attacking point of views of the others rather than defending yours. Anyway, let's stop it here, just let me lend you my hand with a possible proposal: why don't you make an attempt to create an article about the current FC Barcelona season as well as I did for US Palermo and include your own table? Football seasons for top-level teams are known to be absolutely notable, so don't worry about AfDs in the case. --Angelo 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, no, I'll not stop it, because I have the right to defend my point of view. Also, it's rude to ask some one to stop defend his point of view. Second, no one have to accept what the community and users say, if what they are saying has no base. This is not a voting, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one." from WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette. Third, for sure there is need to answer all points, it's the only way to argue against that point. Finally, remember, just because I'm alone here, that does not mean I'm wrong. --ClaudioMB 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please stop your crusade? We are discussing about the need for standalone squad articles, so please accept what the Wikipedia community and users say. There's no need to answer to all the users supporting the deletion process, i.e. everyone but you. --Angelo 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot argue about the contents. This is a group deletion and the articles' contents are quite different. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. The point here is the type of article itself, like Punkmorten proposed--ClaudioMB 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:NOT#INFO. I don't feel the real need to have the article. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please, which one of the 10 items on WP:NOT#INFO are you referring to?--ClaudioMB 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with the respective team articles--JForget 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as it completely lacks context, and is redundant. It strikes me that such an article could be useful if a lot of prose was added - perhaps writing about historically notable players, and including the current squad as an addition, but as it is currently designed, it is better suited to the main article. Resolute 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This information is already present in the main article; there is no need for a separate one. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. ~EdBoy[c] 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article. --ClaudioMB 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Because there is real interest on detailed information about some clubs' squads. That's true, because detailed information already exist on the players' articles. The squad articles gather detailed information to release a club scope's view. It also allows to sort and compare players' information. A merge, perhaps, will be not good, because it'll bring to much detail information to the club's page and it could disturb those who don't want it.--ClaudioMB creator of FC Barcelona squad 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. The two articles are formated differently. Please, take a look on both of them. --ClaudioMB 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Continuing: First, the information added on the last couple days are relevant for a football club: start team, tactical formation and pitch formation. All of them related to the main purpose of a football club: play football. Second, relevant information not necessarily comes as text, it could come as tables, lists, graphics or pictures, as long they deliver the intended information. Nevertheless, including written explanations and facts will be a good improvement. Finally, because the article is less then 3 days old and, so far, edited just by one person, it will need more time and people to mature. So, delete an article like that will be wrong. By the way, I'm guessing the article's title should be "FC Barcelona Current Squad" instead of "FC Barcelona Squad".--ClaudioMB 06:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary duplication as per all above. And yes, the articles are formatted differently, which makes no difference to the existence of either. Creator has seemingly split these off the main club articles after finding consensus against him/her at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for changing the standard football club squad listing format. - fchd 06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary fork against consensus, duplication. Qwghlm 07:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm asking to remove FC_Barcelona_squad from this delete group because its content and format is quite different from the other one, this is not following WP:AFD#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion.--ClaudioMB 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it's not the format that's at issue here. It's the fact that these split-off articles exist as seperate entities. - fchd 08:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - pointless duplication WikiGull 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Govvy 10:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Following Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion these articles could not be deleted based on the guideline argument used as reason for deletion (posted by Punkmorten). Now, I'm going to try find a compromise. FC_Barcelona_squad is right now just 1 day old. The article still been improved. Everyone here is invited to contribute on it. After while, when the article matures, if still not satisfying some people then we will discuss it.--ClaudioMB 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- You just don't get it. The format is not the problem. The very existance of a individual article for a squad is the problem. Punkmorten 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is the guideline I'm talking about.--ClaudioMB 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which is a very sensible reason for putting an article to AfD. Your point seems to be lost on everyone else here. Duplicate articles, and pointless off-shoots have been debated and usually deleted here hundreds if not thousands of times, all following the policies. - fchd 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, I'm going to quote "disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it" from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion. Second, my point is not lost among others because there is just a single point for deletion: "Here in Wikipedia we don't have individual articles for club squads". You cannot argue about the content because this is a group deletion and the articles' contents are quite different. Third, if the other articles that were deleted were similar to FC Barcelona squad, I have to say or no one tried to keep it, or they tried but didn't know about Deletion Policy or they new about it but they weren't quite firm. Finally, I'd like to recall for a compromise, like I explained before. The two discussions before plus this one, perhaps, are going too long. I accept my half part of the guilt on this.--ClaudioMB 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- How about the fact that these articles are bare lists with no scope, context or prose? I can see this as being a logical breakout for such team articles, but what these lists need badly is context. Write an article on FC Barcelona players. Write about the historical greats for the team, write about the current squad, and include this list as part of that. That, imo, would argue the notability and context to justify the article. What currently stands is redundant and unnecessary. Resolute 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions. I was already think about write something about the current squad, or maybe some else that see the article could do it. Unfortunately, the article was tag for deletion four hours after created. I could agree with a tag for improvement or a request to comment. The article FC Barcelona squad was improved in the last 24h and now there is more unique and usable information. So, I have to disagree that is redundant and unnecessary. Could be merge, but maybe it will be too much information for the majority of reads.--ClaudioMB 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- - But all the "improvements" are less encyclopaedic than the basic squad list. I really think you are on to a loser here, and shoudl concentrate in improving the players articles so that they show the information you are interested in. - fchd 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, I could see how the information on FC Barcelona squad is less encyclopedic then the squad list. Second, I think a discussion about AfD is not a competition, so there aren't winners and losers. The goal here is to improve the Wikipedia, I have my point of view that an article with details of a football team squad will be an improvement to the main clubs' article. Some people don't. Finally, after you suggested I'll be a "loser", I didn't appreciate you telling what I should or not to do.--ClaudioMB 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- - But all the "improvements" are less encyclopaedic than the basic squad list. I really think you are on to a loser here, and shoudl concentrate in improving the players articles so that they show the information you are interested in. - fchd 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions. I was already think about write something about the current squad, or maybe some else that see the article could do it. Unfortunately, the article was tag for deletion four hours after created. I could agree with a tag for improvement or a request to comment. The article FC Barcelona squad was improved in the last 24h and now there is more unique and usable information. So, I have to disagree that is redundant and unnecessary. Could be merge, but maybe it will be too much information for the majority of reads.--ClaudioMB 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- How about the fact that these articles are bare lists with no scope, context or prose? I can see this as being a logical breakout for such team articles, but what these lists need badly is context. Write an article on FC Barcelona players. Write about the historical greats for the team, write about the current squad, and include this list as part of that. That, imo, would argue the notability and context to justify the article. What currently stands is redundant and unnecessary. Resolute 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, I'm going to quote "disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it" from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion. Second, my point is not lost among others because there is just a single point for deletion: "Here in Wikipedia we don't have individual articles for club squads". You cannot argue about the content because this is a group deletion and the articles' contents are quite different. Third, if the other articles that were deleted were similar to FC Barcelona squad, I have to say or no one tried to keep it, or they tried but didn't know about Deletion Policy or they new about it but they weren't quite firm. Finally, I'd like to recall for a compromise, like I explained before. The two discussions before plus this one, perhaps, are going too long. I accept my half part of the guilt on this.--ClaudioMB 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which is a very sensible reason for putting an article to AfD. Your point seems to be lost on everyone else here. Duplicate articles, and pointless off-shoots have been debated and usually deleted here hundreds if not thousands of times, all following the policies. - fchd 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is the guideline I'm talking about.--ClaudioMB 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- You just don't get it. The format is not the problem. The very existance of a individual article for a squad is the problem. Punkmorten 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Should be in the main article --BanRay 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's your PoV. I think it should be apart, that's my PoV. That's even the discussion.--ClaudioMB 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I fail to get your point --BanRay 14:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- My point was that someone cannot just give his/her point of view, because this is not a voting ("Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one." from WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette). It's necessary a clear reason (using Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion).--ClaudioMB 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The whole thing looks absolutely obvious to everyone, but you, sorry, but I'm not gonna make it any clearer than that --BanRay 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, now I realize your initial position is contradictory. Are you asking for deletion or merge? Second, 'obvious' is not a reason for deletion, also 'everyone but you' because it is not a voting. --ClaudioMB 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The whole thing looks absolutely obvious to everyone, but you, sorry, but I'm not gonna make it any clearer than that --BanRay 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- My point was that someone cannot just give his/her point of view, because this is not a voting ("Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one." from WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette). It's necessary a clear reason (using Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion).--ClaudioMB 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I fail to get your point --BanRay 14:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's your PoV. I think it should be apart, that's my PoV. That's even the discussion.--ClaudioMB 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from someone ignorant about soccer: Some editors use the term "club squad" in a way that makes me think it means something other than "a list of the current players". I'm not sure that's correct, though. Would it make sense to have an article on Club squad to explain this concept? JamesMLane t c 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I can't recall "club squad" or the more prevalent just "squad" referring to anything other than the list of available players. - fchd 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. – Elisson • T • C • 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please, which one of the 10 items on WP:NOT#INFO are you referring to? --ClaudioMB 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect the extra information. However, we should use a hide tag for the younger reserve squads so that they can easily be hidden from view; they're more information than the average reader would want. But if they are hidden by default, they can be accessed after a merger. matt91486 23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't understand what you mean by Redirect. Please, could you explain it? --ClaudioMB 16:14, 3 June 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.
