Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WAGs of 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 I'd consider a merge, but it is all unreferenced - I'm willing to undelete the history if anyone wants it for a merge - but they'll need to be prepared to reference every entry. -Docg 08:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WAGs of 2006

WAGs of 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a list of girlfriends of the members of the England football team at the 2006 World cup, and as such I suggest it falls foul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tim! 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Non-English Wikipedians (Yes, I know im's English...) might not appreciate just how pervasive the WAGs are in English culture, and as the last major tournament 2006 is the current 'definitive' set. It's hardly indiscriminate, given that the list is self limiting at 21 (a squad of 20 + a manager) and will only crop up every two years at most. I don't think this would work as a category - it includes a bunch of redlinks, all of which could be expanded into valid articles (pick a name at random & Google it - these people are all the subject of major press coverage in their own right, even if their fame ultimately derives from their partners), which would be lost if it became a category — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. The wives and girlfriends of the English soccer team? Why not a list of the spouses of the Super Bowl champion Indianapolis Colts or the French soccer team? TJ Spyke 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate info. Why even bother listing the wives and girlfriends of sports players? Notability isn't inehrited ya know... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Iridiescenti argues they are separately notable, and some do have individual articles; if the others are notable, they should also. A category would then be appropriate. Otherwise, the place for lists might be the main article on WAGs--this article is getting a little long, but the thing to do would be subarticles, not a list. DGG 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I took up the invitation above to google one of them (I chose "Michaela Henderson-Thynne", a name chosen for easy googlability) and was underwhelmed. WP is not a British tabloid on a slow day. -- Hoary 05:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete war bait, easily could violate BLP, and just useless. Whsitchy 06:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Only because the British press doesn't respect the privacy of non-notable persons doesn't mean Wikipedia should do the same. Malc82 13:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If these people are only notable by virtue of who they're banging, then it seems to me even collectively they do not merit an article. If they are notable for other reasons, then a category would suffice, since it is hopeless that this list will ever be complete. --Infrangible 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This list is already complete - it's about who the members of the group were at a specific time (July 2006) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see this is heading for WP:SNOW, but will still defend it - they may have got their fame only through their partners, but that's not an automatic bar - if it weren't for family ties, would we do have articles on a PR agent from Buckinghamshire, a librarian from Austin, or two very lengthy articles about a cat, or indeed overwhelmingly !voted "keep" on an article about an Alsation? The 2006 WAGs are the subject of their own TV series, news coverage as a specific group in Britain's biggest-circulation newspaper and lengthy articles (again as a specific group) in both of Britain's leading quality newspapers [1][2][3] — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply No need for Snow (shouldn't be done unless CSD rules apply, anyway). That there are other unneccessary articles on WP is no reason. If the examples mentioned aren't notable themselves, they should be heading for AfDs too. Malc82 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt that some WAGs have notability of their own and that most of them are featured in the press, but the problem with this article is that it is pure gossip and has no encyclopedic value at all. Malc82 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment On further reflection, it seems to me that, since the group will only ever consist of 21 people every two years, it could happily sit as a section of WAGs. Does anyone have any objection to merging it there? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Iridsecentis last comment into WAGs. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Iridsecentis last comment into WAGs. Doesn't deserve a separate article. Da-rb 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that the WAGs article should only address the WAGs phenomenon (cultural influences, media attention etc.), which it actually does pretty well IMO. I still don't see a reason to keep a list of people who (theoretically) have nothing in common except for the profession of their husbands/boyfriends. As an enry to the village pump [4] just put it: popularity and fame are not identical to notability. Malc82 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - indiscriminate information. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The information on this article is relevant to WAGs#WAGs_of_2006.--ClaudioMB 14:42, 7 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.