Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006

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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 04:50Z

[edit] NHL Results October 2006

NHL Results October 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Way more detail than necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia; this is not a news archive. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

NHL Results November 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
NHL Results December 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dsreyn 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment For future reference, pages that are so closely related can usually be listed together.--Kchase T 19:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all and nominator, please combine (you will have to change the links in the articles). --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The AfD links in the articles for November and December now point here; I changed the nom above to indicate this. Dsreyn 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 and others. Punkmorten 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete all per precedent. SkierRMH 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, seems to fall into the domain of indiscriminate information. General information about notable games can be included in the season/team articles, if and only if appropriate. This level of detail borders on unencyclopedic and is best left to a site like retrosheet.com (or whatever its hockey counterpart would be). --Kinu t/c 05:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all, because exists FA Premier League results August 2006 etc. I do not see a difference. Spy1986 16:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The existence of one article does not justify that of another. This is considered a very weak argument in an AfD discussion. Indeed, it suggests that perhaps the FA article(s) need to be reconsidered for deletion as well (cf. the centralized discussion noted on its AfD page). Please explain why you believe the article should be kept, citing policy/guidelines, and by responding to the issues noted by those recommending deletion. --Kinu t/c 17:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Also, it is generally considered good form to identify yourself as the author of the article in question. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 17:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of hockey deletions. Resolute 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Especially for lacking context. I'd prefer to see game results in team season pages rather than a league page. Resolute 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all as per Spy1986. Canadianshoper 06:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All. If it were all one one page, such as NHL Results for 2006-07, then maybe look into keeping it, maybe. But this is pointless and a waste of energy. Kaiser matias 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All, yeah this is a much better example of indiscriminate information than the transactions article(s). Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 09:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Wikipedia is not paper. This is interesting information. Just H 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All; Wikipedia is not waste paper. This information is contained on numerous sites, including the NHL's and those of most weekly newspapers. RGTraynor 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All. This information can be retrieved on the individual team's season's page. You can check out those teams on this template. In addition, all of this information is organized and can be better understood on the NHL's official website [1]. Ksy92003 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All as per Ksy92003. Skudrafan1 02:16, 25 December 2006 (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.