Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Cup 2004-05

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 Help 'ma boab. Well you could say at this point snow stops play -Docg 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Cup 2004-05

Scottish Cup 2004-05 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Pages like this covering the cup back to the 1940s. Info better suited to a sports guide? JMalky 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I can only assume this nomination is a joke. How about deleting all the stuff about the English F.A. cup next? Or the Stanley Cup? Or the Ashes? At least the nominator gave the writers of the article a full seven minutes between posting a notability tag and putting it up for AfD. Nick mallory 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly encyclopedic. Plus there is already a precedent for such articles on domestic cup competitions - equivalent articles exist for FA Cup, German Cup, Danish Cup, Italian Cup, Norwegian Cup, Spanish Cup etc etc. With regard to articles dating back to the 1940s, the FA Cup follows along similar lines in that there is an article for each final. This is just the same thing, only the final has been incorporated with the full results for each round. Forbsey 10:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Definetley notable. Mattythewhite 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason why this article shouldn't be kept. definately notable. My reasons are also the reasons stated in the above Keeps. - Jackm (Talk - Contributions) 10:31, 6 June 2007
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per all the preceding comments. Ref (chew)(do) 10:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per above. Notable. GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well given the amazing outcry above it looks like it's going to stay. But whichever way you look at it, the article and it's siblings are essentially a long list of statistics. Notability of the Scottish Cup isn't in question by the way. But info who won the semi final in 1952 certainly is. Seriously guys, this is meant to be an encyclopedia. Not a football annual. JMalky 11:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - the default action for notable articles which look like lists of statistics should be to introduce prose in between the statistical tables, expanding on what is contained therein. We should never just throw it in the bin without trying. Ref (chew)(do) 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - very useful, notable, verifiable, valid historical information. Certainly more worthy of its place in any encyclopedia than every single episode of a TV series for example. - fchd 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Who are you kidding? W1k13rh3nry 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep to me it all looks like a bad faith nomination. --Angelo 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Shocker of a nomination! WikiGull 13:50, 6 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.