Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangers F.C. season 2005-06

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 keep; the last sentence of Jimbo Wales' mailing list comment is also applicable. Daniel.Bryant [ T ยท C ] 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rangers F.C. season 2005-06

Rangers F.C. season 2005-06 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

unneeded, there's an article on scottish football for those seasons

  • I think this and all other seasons included in the RFCbyseason template (and the Rangers F.C. seasons category) should all be deleted. There has to be some sort of line set as to what you can add to this encyclopedia and what you can't and I think that the Scottish football 05/06 article is sufficient on its own (same for other seasons). If we keep this we could be setting a dangerous precedent, starting thousands of season articles for particular clubs. I really appreciate the amount of work put in by WP editors into these articles but I just don't think they're necessary. Yonatanh 23:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - More than just the Scottish league info is included, such as the Champion's League games. I also don't see how thousands of season articles for clubs is a bad thing. A club's season-by-season history is encylcopedic, and would overwhelm the club articles themselves for teams with very much history. It also provides a nice place to put roster info (who else was on the team with XYZ in 2005), which have been turning up in more than a few places lately. Neier 12:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - This will be setting a precedent where you could have 50 articles for all of Falkirk or Bolton's seasons (if there's a bored enough supporter). You have to draw the line somewhere. Yonatanh 13:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Why stop there? We could have Forres Mechanics or Caernarfon Town seasons too! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • So, too much info is a bad thing? There are already bars for inclusion of soccer teams. Adding info like this to each team's article is not against wikipedia's policies, and by creating a sub-page for a season, it keeps the main article relatively clean. Would we rather have all of the World Cup results discussed on the single FIFA World Cup page, or should we leave them split out onto separate pages? Neier 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Perfectly encyclopaedic, contains team information as above as well as details of transfers etc. which were removed from the main Rangers F.C. article as the season by season articles provide somewhere for more detailed statistics. Archibald99 15:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - For the reason Yonatanh said. Except the thousand of articles that willbe created about every team, there is the danger to create articles for every season, including the past, and just remember; Imagine how many articles such this will be in the future KRBN 13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, I ask, is too much information a bad thing? Why is there such a panic that there could be so many articles? Neier 14:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly, I fail to see what negative impact these articles have on Wikipedia. Archibald99 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, Articles on the seasons for football teams are encylcopedic. Wikipedia does not have a limit to the articles created nor do valid articles waste space. These articles are useful and I am in 100% favour of them. Englishrose 10:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - these articles are supplements to the main club articles. They comply with all WP policies. They are entirely encyclopaedic. There will not be thousands of articles produced - these take a lot of work and will only be written when an editor is committed enough to do the work. Even if many were written so what, we are not short of server space. TerriersFan 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As with the recently deleted articles on month-by-month results and lists of goalscorers, the majority of the information in these articles fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a news (or sports news) service, nor a sports almanac. Particularly important/relevant information in this article should be able to be merged to 2005-06 in Scottish football and/or Scottish Premier League 2005-06. QmunkE 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oh, and the article is also almost completely lacking citations/footnotes. It currently fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. QmunkE 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fixed easily enough. Archibald99 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, not that easily: it's not fixed yet. Still seems like a hundiscriminate collection of hunformation, or something that sounds similar. Last time I looked this was Wikipedia, not Followfollowpedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ignoring that particular piece of comedy, I said it was easily fixed 6 hours ago. There may be no citations added yet, but the point still stands that they could be. "It's not Followfollowpedia" - are you planning an AfD for the Rangers F.C. article? Archibald99 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Those season review articles were completely different from this one, they were deleted because they were highly POV and written in the style of tabloid newspaper reports. They contained no stats or results or anything else useful, which is why they were deleted, not because this type of article shouldn't exist. Gasheadsteve 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - For reasons given by Englishrose. Yorkshiresky 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There is already a precedent of season-by-season articles for professional sports teams. Have a look at Category:Current sports events and you'll find plenty of them. WP:5 states that Wikipedia incorporates information that would be found in almanacs, and to me this article falls within this field. Gasheadsteve 19:10, 3 January 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.