Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Roosters 1911 Season

As per previous decision. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as sport almanac material - wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT - Peripitus 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Changing vote to Keep - Athenaeum is correct - I'd never viewed that section before in relation to sporting results but if the club stays here then this stays here - Peripitus 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that wikipedia ends up storing the results of every professional sporting event ever? Because that's the natural spin-off. If the 1911 Sydney Rooster get a full listing, then we need the 154+ results of every major league baseball teams for every year since 1880, every division 1 soccer game for 100 years in at least six major countries, every NFL/NBA/NHL game ever played, every top flight rugby league or rugby union result... Furthermore, who the hell is going to put them in? You? Me? This keen Sydney Roosters fan? Is he even going to do the other ARL teams? -- GWO
• Keep Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material. Athenaeum 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or maybe move to Eastern Suburbs 1911 Season. Also, what's with the use of the current logo? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a sports almanac. Isn't there as site like http://baseball-reference.com where this can go? -- GWO
  • The great thing about Wikipedia is that it should no longer be necessary to wonder what specialised site one might have to visit to find a piece of information, as all subjects can now be covered here. Piccadilly 08:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Athenaeum's reasoning. Of course, this assumes that the Sydney Roosters are notable enough. I know nothing about Australian Rugby leagues, so feel free to let me know if my assumption is incorrect. ScottW 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Athenaeum although we need a policy for Foo team season. I voted delete for a similar Afd a few days ago. The Sydney Roosters are a notable Australian rugby league playing in the National Rugby League. In those days, they were called Eastern Suburbs so this article should be renamed in my view. It would also be better if it was an article covering the Sydney rugby league competition in that year as a whole. The logo appears anachronistic as well. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I created the page and I believe it is an extensive resourceful piece of information, to answer a few questions:
• 1. I named it Sydney Roosters 1911 Season as many people associate the club with that name and Eastern Suburbs is not a name that is recognisable by today's generation. The purpose is that a search of the Sydney Roosters is more likely than Eastern Suburbs and will show the necessary information, also I have noted that the club was named Eastern Suburbs within the article. However if the decision was made to change it Eastern Suburbs 1911 Season I would have no objection.

2. The logo is used as I consider this page moreso an archive to the Sydney Roosters main page. In the effort to uniform all archives, I have opted for the current logo so that is more recognisable by the reader. I was also planning of including the old logo in the near future.

There will be more additions to come making it a resourceful database, events including the playing squad and their point statistics as well as including season highlights. The information justifies its existence as well as the promise of more updates. Sbryce858 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as reposting of previously deleted content.--cj | talk 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That can't apply forever regardless of the current consensus. Piccadilly 08:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Legitimate and useful. Piccadilly 08:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Athenaeum. Sandstein 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Sydney_Roosters_Season_articles concerning some analoguous articles. I've proposed relisting them here for the sake of a coherent decision. Sandstein 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT.--Peta 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just realised I haven't voted myself. Wikipedia may be an almanac, but there has to be a limit. Listing every result, for every single season is not encyclopedic. The Season Standings section in the main Sydney Roosters article is sufficient. The Club history section could be added to, or made a seperate article giving a rundown of any notable seasons. Either that or, as previously proposed, there could be an article for each NRL season, eg 1911 National Rugby League season. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article should have been deleted according to previous discussion. As said previously, these results might be acceptable at 1911 NSWRL season or something like that, but there's no need for a page for each team. JPD (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote changed as it seems things like this will be kept. I still think this information would be better in one article for the whole season, but if we are going to have these articles for 2006, we can have them for 1911. The anachronistic names and logos still need to be fixed. JPD (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Note also that the page Athenaeum cites does not say that Wikipedia is an alamanac. It says that articles include information that is encyclopedic or almanac-like (meaning charts, tables, lists, etc.) It does not try to say anything about what should be deleted or not, simply what is an "article", rather than some other sort of page. JPD (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is highly desirable to have a comprehensive encyclopedia of sport on the net and no one else is going to create one. Hawkestone 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above. Rebecca 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ubercruft.  Grue  14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Who would have thought a few years ago that Wikipedia would ever have over a million articles. We did that, so let's keep going and getting better and more detailed. Merchbow 20:49, 6 June 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.