- FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)
This article and other of the same kind were deleted under unconcrete arguments proposed by administrators which are not editors of articles of the same kind(football) and simply have opted for deleting them under arguments of excessive detail under WP:NOT, which this article does not fall into that. This information is not published as here elsewhere and this kind of articles help people in different ways, professionally or personally. This article is informative and can help in any form of football research. For example, a sports journalist could write an article on an FA Premier League player who is not a top scorer but wants to know how many goals he scored in a particular season, and how he has evolved. This kind of article provides just that. It may be unnecessary to some, but helpful and necessary to others. Maybe these goalscorer football articles should only be kept for top-level European leagues, such as the Spanish, Italian, Dutch, English, Scotish and French and German if the articles are created. I agree that second level league goalscorers are excessive detail and some top-level leagues such as the Libyan or Danish one. I have contributed a lot to these articles (my ISP changes my IP continously, and I use a different IP all the time) and I hate to see these articles going simply because some administrators think that they are unnecessary. Administrators and others have argued that this is a list of facts and trivia, but there are other lists that are worth keeping which are not deleted and are similar to these articles, but on a different topic. An example could be Deaths in 2006 (there are 12 subarticles for this one) Thank you 190.40.185.235 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, undelete - First of all I say that I totally agree with the arguments made above. I was considering this deletion review myself as well, but decided to talk to the moderator in question first to ask him why and get some clarification. I quote the moderator from the AfD: "In this case, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a sports reporting center, nor a complete collection of all of history so we can look at wikipedia in the future for everything that has happened in the past. I like it and "we've worked really hard" are also not reasons for keeping an article." Reading that I think the moderator is right and I agree that Wikipedia is indeed not all that what he described. But to me (I can't talk for others) this kind of information is there to describe an event, to inform others what has happened in a certain event that they are interested in. It's not an overkill of information, but just a split-off from the original competition articles to reduce the size of these pages. The information like this can be found nowhere else on the internet, at least not in this form. There was not just the "it's useful and I like it" arguments to keep this up and running. Like the user above me already said, articles like Deaths in 2006 and other years are a good example of this type of articles that do work pretty well. From what I know all of these goalscorers articles were up-to-date as of today, which shows that at least the people work on the articles consider it important enough to be included in an encyclopedia and keep this up-to-date. SportsAddicted | discuss 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, restore I would also like to flag attention to the arguments for keeping this article, pointed out by numerous users in the appropriate AfD. Clearly in this case the information is neither overkill nor inappropriate. By contrast, it is relevant, informative and useful for research for many people. That is clear by the commenting on the AfD. If this information is not on it's own page, it would be on the appropriate competition pages, and, judging by the size of those and the size of this page, that clearly is not appropriate. I'd like to quote: "Why make Wikipedia less informative just for the sake of it? I know this article is of great use to sport journalists (which I am) and is not 'freely' available elsewhere. There is all sorts of 'Almanac'-style information in many encyclopaedias such as Encarta or Britannica.". The fact that it's notable and of use to people, as many other list articles (deaths) are, coupled with the 'keep' support and argument the AfD received surely means this needs a review. Whilding87 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I wouldn't like to say what I'd do in this situation as a closing admin - its one of those awkward situations where the majority have given one opinion but that this is an opinion that appears to contradict most interpretations of WP:NOT. So my only comment in this review, as the original deleting nominator, would be to note that contrary to what 190.40.185.235, and others have claimed, this article has not been nomianted for deletion by non-footballing, uninterested admins. Many of us who have voiced that we should delete these articles have been heavily involved in improving Wikipedia's footballing and sporting coverage. --Robdurbar 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also like to remind all on this that..Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process...and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate I.E. comment on the debate (as SportsAddicted) not the article's mertis --Robdurbar 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not totally sure what you are trying to say here, but I am disputing the fact that these articles are deleted saying there was reached a consensus to delete them, which is not the case, in fact most opinion releasers in the AfD (not voters as it's not a voting) had arguments for keeping these documents. In my opinion this decision to delete the articles has been een error in the process like you name it and I'm here to correct this. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- No sorry, I mean that you had done this correctly; but that some of the other contributions had been more like re-voicing of AfD opinions - my reference to you was merely pointing out how an argument ought to be phrased! --Robdurbar 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, no problem :) SportsAddicted | discuss 10:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion then, as I think the closing admin took a tough call but one that reflects the philosophy of a 'discussion not vote' and one that reflects the long term interests of Wikiepdia. --Robdurbar 10:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, restore Along with the two editors above, I agree that these pages should be reinstated to wikipedia. I personally believe that pages are encyclopedic, are useful to users of wikipedia especially due to a similar resource not existing elsewhere on the internet, not to mention being a well maintained and well laid out article in wikipedia. I also think that eleminating these pages reduces the overall quality of each leagues 2006/07 article. Niall123 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, undelete - The article passes the fundamental question of "is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia because of it." There is a lot of useful information, that as mentioned above, is not easily available elsewhere. Gisele Hsieh 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, restore This is one of those cases where one side says: "Look, this thing clearly violates WP:NOT" and the other side says "no, it doesn't". We've had plenty of those before (schools spring to mind), and they promote a lot of factionalism and 50-50 splits. Both sides carried valid arguments in the debate, with Mjefm and SportsAddicted etc. outlining why the article is of use, and Robdurbar, Oldelpaso, Dsreyn etc. arguing that . In the end, it thus comes down to what way you interpret indiscriminate collection of information. But using only that as an argument, you could virtually delete anything on Wikipedia, since everything here is a collection of information and it's just a matter of calling it indiscriminate or not, assuming you got the closing admins or enough editors to listen to you. That's fine. Most times you don't, of course, since editors have a clear sense of what is notable and what is not, but in such borderline cases it's best to leave it to a public debate rather than judge the arguments and then make a decision where some kind of personal decision has been thrown in. In this case, the debate seemed to have reached little consensus, with a lot of people not seeing the merits of the arguments held by the delete side, and the closing admin should have taken that into account.
- Of course, there is a limit to what kind of goalscoring detail is notable. In the extreme case, finding no third-party sources publishing goalscoring information should be the decider. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The goalscoring of these leagues can be found at third-party sources, but are not displayed the way they were in these articles, what made the documents unique material. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. I won't repeat any arguments here, but if anyone is interrested, I just posted this to the football project talk: "Final decision on league by month results and league goalscorers". – Elisson • T • C • 20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - on the grounds that this high level of detail is best suited to other, specialist, sites. The information IS overkill, and the process was fairly and equitably carried out. Top 10 or 20 goalscorers I can see as having encyclopaedic merit. Every single goalscorer - no. - fchd 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- fchd, the thing is, there are no other sites that provide this kind of information. This information is here because many members that contribute to this kind of article keep an eye on this and contribute to keep the article up to date for it to be useful. This information which is not almanac style helps people in different things. What makes me mad is that this articles are getting deleted and not articles alike such as deaths per month and airlines destinations (there are other type of articles such as lists by GDP, etc.)190.40.185.235 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- If there are no sites that provide this kind of information, then where is it from? I sincerely doubt that there isn't a single site out there that has a statistics on the goalscorers in the most popular national football competition in the world. Not completely unrelated, I know that the Swedish FA has such info for the top Swedish league available online. – Elisson • T • C • 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Ellison, This information has been collected from people that watch the matches and from articles like League Results by month. Also, there are sites and many news articles which say who scored in a match, and based on that this article is created. I have in fact searched for it and found none. There is no site that Wikipedia users are aware of. I know some of you who want this article deleted want a summary of the top goalscorers. But how are we supposed to know who the league top scorers are if we can't keep count on the player's goals? I mean, the player with the lowest amount of goals listed in FA Premier League 2006-07 has 8 goals, and how will we know which players have 7 goals so that when they make it to 8 we add them there? There is a reason for subarticles.190.40.185.235 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Err, because there are sites that list the top goalscorers? Swedish State Television has such a list on teletext here. Just to settle this argument, the official site of the FA Premier League has a list of all goalscorers of the season. Click "Actim Stats" in the left column at the site, launch the Actim Station, then sort the players list by top scorers. Done. Can we disregard all the "oh this is found nowhere else"-comments now? – Elisson • T • C • 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment edit history restored and article protected for the run of this review. ~ trialsanderrors 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, and I fully support Elisson's remarks. Wikipedia is not the place for such things. With the remit of Wikisource having being reduced so that statistical information is no longer included there, perhaps it is instead worth creating a "Wikistats" wiki to cater for this kind of numerical source information? I can see it being useful not just for sports results but election results, census data, etc. Qwghlm 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and undelete. This was procedurally a wrong close. Whatever the views of the closer there was no overwhelming balance of arguments or 'votes' to justify deletion. The article meets WP:5 as almanac and specialist encyclopaedic information. This is not indiscriminate information; it is verifiable, organised and finite. BlueValour 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak endorse deletion. The argument that the information can not be found elsewhere is a pretty sure sign you have original research, and the rest of the keeps seemed to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IWORKEDONITHARDYOUDELETIONIST. -Amarkov blahedits 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Like I already said above, the information can be found on other websites and thus is verifiable and does not count as original research. The only thing that is different just like all other articles on wikipedia is that these verifiable information from several websites or website subpages is bundled together into one article and shown in a different, but user friendly accessible in a decent lay-out. Free to find for anyone interested without having to browse several websites or multiple pages within the same website elsewhere on the net or Wikipedia. SportsAddicted | discuss 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure what you mean by "other websites". I assume you mean the league websites themselves (and not fan websites which are not reliable sources), but as of the last revision before deletion none of them were cited. I'm also not sure that, while admittedly useful (but so are definitions and how-to manuals, both specifically not allowed on WP), that there isn't a better home for them. Qwghlm's suggestion of a "wikistats" Wiki seems great, actually. ColourBurst 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Here for instance you can choose a team in several European leagues. Pick for instance Feyenoord and then statistieken and you will see the goals scored by Feyenoord players in this season. This works the same for other teams in the same and other competitions. So the information (at least in some leagues and probably more on other websites on the net) is available but people has to click through tons of different pages on the same website to get the results that was available in Wikipedia on just one article about the goalscorers of a league. Also, I'm pretty sure that as soon as this years leagues are over this information will be gone on that website and replaced by the goalscorers of next season, meaning the information would be harder to find in the future. SportsAddicted | discuss 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Closer correctly pointed out that (quite aside from the lack of third-party sources) there was no context explaining the encyclopedic significance of the data. For plot summaries we require that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." There is no assertion in the review request here that we should now require less of sporting events. Dekimasu 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Right, so where do these articles not meet your criteria then? What part of these lists does not make real world context? As you can see above they can be sourced, offering detail is available as these lists are complete. Being written in detail is not necessary in this situation, or are we also going to delete all lists on wikipedia without written detail? These goals are scored by notible figures playing for notible teams in notible leagues, which have affect on the results (final rankings) of these teams, which shows the historical value of these goals. They're not just a summary, they are a list like there are many lists on Wikipedia and they are an expansion on the articles about a certain season of the league. SportsAddicted | discuss 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I want to know the signficance of the goals, and I want that to be based on outside sources. As always, notability is conferred by coverage about the topic, not tangential references to the topic. Data without interpretation is not encyclopedic. At any rate, it seems to me you are continuing a deletion debate here, but that's not what the page is for. The page is for discussing whether there was a procedural error in the closing. Dekimasu 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, like I said before somewhere above this message inbetween some of the many replies I do believe there was a procedural error in the closing as there was no consensus reached yet at the AfD and thus these articles were deleted too early in my opinion. That was the main issue here in the first place, but as others are continuing debating about this as well instead of giving their opinion on whether the moderator in question made an error by deleting these I simply have to react and defend my point of view. You want the significance of the goals based on outside sources? Does that mean you want proof for the goals to be not accidently scored but by a player's skill? I don't think I really understand what you're trying to say here. SportsAddicted | discuss 10:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm trying to say that I would like to see a distinction between data and knowledge. If there is no background information explaining why the number of goals scored by each individual is important - say, important (i.e. Wikipedia-notable) awards given to the player with the most goals - it is just information. It is the distinction between data and knowledge that separates "indiscriminate" information from important information. Dekimasu 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, restore - There is certainly no consensus (see the AfD discussion), there is definitely no precedent as many lists exist on WP of far more obscure subjects without challenge (list of palindromes, anybody?). Maybe Libyan and Danish leagues are not sufficiently noteworthy but I am not challenging those deletions - England, Scotland, Spain, Italy and the other major leagues must stay. WP is here for a purpose; to be informative, useful, detailed and definitive. Those who delete articles like the major league goalscorers lists are making WP worse just for the sake of it. WP doesn't exist just so that we can all sit around smugly and say "Look at this in-no-way-Almanacky encyclopædia we made that is useless if you're a sports journalist trying to do some research." The articles must be restored and updated quickly if WP is to remain an authentic, definitive encyclopædia. Mjefm 13:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment - There was clearly an error in deletion procedure. Consensus was cited on deleting the articles for being too obscure, but a glance at the discussion on AfD shows this is spectacularly not the case; if anything, there is an obvious majority favouring keeping the articles. There are also inaccurate and subjective assertions in the reasons given for deletion - that the information is not available elsewhere (it is, we just make it tidier, easier to comprehend and all together in one place), that the subject is not noteworthy (on what grounds?). Additionally, fair arguments are ignored - Is WP better because of these articles? Certainly. Mjefm 13:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse and re-delete, proper closing, Wikipedia is not a data dump. >Radiant< 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- So that people do not miss it, I'll write what I wrote up there somewhere down here as well: Just to settle this argument, the official site of the FA Premier League has a list of all goalscorers of the season. Click "Actim Stats" in the left column at the site, launch the Actim Station, then sort the players list by top scorers. Done. Can we disregard all the "oh this is found nowhere else"-comments now? – Elisson • T • C • 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Looks promising, but whatever I do while inside the Actim Station, it unfortunately doesn't give me any results, so I can not see whether you are right or not, but from what they pretend to be offering (these and other stats) that looks promising. For the Dutch leagues the information is available too, but shown in a different way as they were used on Wikipedia. SportsAddicted | discuss 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Actim list fo goalscorers does not provide the same information that is provided in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, the goalscorer articles gave the amount of goals scored by each player per team and the nationality of the player. The Actim list of the FA premier league site is only a ranking and if someone looking for information want so know which team does the player belongs to, it has to actually search more for it, possibly here. Plus, you can't find this information for other top level leagues. SportsAddicted apparently knows about the Dutch one, but you can't find one for the Italian, Scotish or Spanish. I say we just keep the following articles: Serie A goalscorers, La Liga goalscorers, Eredivisie Goalscorers, FA Premier League goalscorers and Scotish Premier League goalscorers.190.40.185.235 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Further Comment The list of goalscorers is on Flash there and it takes quite some time to scroll down by the way. And I support SportsAddicted remarks that the information will be deleted next season. You may find the Dutch ones, but when this season is over they will be deleted.This articles involve one per year per league. I'm talking of 5 leagues so lets just make it 5 articles per year. Compare the to the 12 per year on the Deaths in 2006 list. These articles are useful.190.40.185.235 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Would you care to speculate on why they will be deleted next season? Is it because they aren't very notable and/or are more newsworthy than permanently informative? Dekimasu 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, and would you care to explain why only those five leagues should have such articles, if such articles should exist? And as noted on top of this discussion, we are not here to debate if the articles should be kept of not, we are here to debate if the closing admin did anything wrong, and I still wait to see such evidence put forward. – Elisson • T • C • 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Dekimasu, that site is a site that covers football per season, and it is not an encyclopaedia. The sites of football teams don't keep with the results of every single season the club has been playing but they do keep the current ones and some sites the ones of last season. However, this is an encyclopaedia, and the article provides important information to some adn it does not go into excessive detail to qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information. If the article would say the exact date, time and location alongside each player and there would be articles like, for example, FA Premier League 2006/07 goalscorers by Stadium, by minute, etc., then I would call those an indiscriminate collection of information.
- Ellison, I'd keep all the existing one, at least the ones that are regularly updated. But under the given circumstances, those are the ones that are the most important because they are the top-level leagues in Europe, the most widely seen and the ones that are more probable to help someone. I'd be happy to keep all. I say that the deletition of this articles was wrong because there was absolutely no consensus reached in the AfD. Simply, the administrator that deleted the article took side with the deletition proposers because they were fellow admins and because admins are saying so then it's because they're right. There was no consensus reached therefore no clear reason for the deletition.190.40.185.235 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why was there no consensus reached in the AfD? Claiming that there was a cabal of administrators (which, I guess, would include me) that wanted the articles deleted is not helping your case, but instead only strenghtens the view of you as one of the WP:IWORKEDONITHARDYOUDELETIONIST people, as Amarkov so eloquently expressed it above. I think that the closing admin made it pretty clear that keep !votes such as "I like it", "it is useful" and "it is interresting" does not help build a consensus and can pretty much be ignored as they don't bring the discussion forward. As a sidenote, my name is "Elisson", not "Ellison". – Elisson • T • C • 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Excuse me, Ellisson. The administrator deleted the article under the excessive detail under WP:NOT argument. But these articles do not qualify in the section: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and admin Robdurbar went to WP:NOT added a section on Wikipedia not being an almanac wihtout reaching any consensus before as it is explicitly said at the top of that page to make the article qualify because he thinks it is almanac-style information. Afterwards, I proved that there is a lot of almanac-style information in Wikipedia that is not nominated for deletition, such as lists of countries by categories, airline destinations, deaths per year, etc. 190.40.164.57 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow wow wow, that's all a little misleading. Upon seeing these articles I proposed that almanac - thinking only of sports alamancs, though it was then pointed out that other almanacs contain much more details besides sports- be added as a clarification of 'not a collection of indiscriminate information'. After around a day or so there were only comments supporting this move, so I thought I'd add it in order to promote more discussion - I never claimed that it couldn't be removed, but I thought a consensus was emerging on the talk - and I later took it off when it was pointed out to me that it could be seen as conflict of interests with the ongoing afd's; the section could not have been on WP:NOT for more than 24 hours and has had contributors supporting a re-phrased repositng of the point. I thought - and from their comments, all the users voicing for deletion of the article thought - that the article qualified as an indiscriminate collection anyway; the intention of adding to the policy is to clarify this. Robdurbar 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate it being taken off, but it was only placed there at the time to be used to support the deletition of these articles. As Mjefm has said repeatedly, encyclopaedias contain almanac-style information in its nature, be it sports facts or lists of historical dates. For example, I have found many other sports articles that could qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information under your arguments, and have never been proposed to be deleted. Take a look, for example at Liverpool F.C. seasons and Liverpool F.C. statistics. The latter even has the word "statistics" in its title, which is the very thing you're against! I'm not saying that these articles aren't useful. but I think that there should be no exceptions made. I don't see the encessity of these articles being deleted. These aren't articles being used to vandalize Wikipedia or make fun or something, and it does not violate WP:NOT. As I said before, I think they would qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information if there were many goalscorer articles per league per year, with goals by player's nationality, time, stadium, month, etc.190.40.164.57 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I for one, did not know that the "almanac paragraph" had been added, and I doubt a lot of the users at the AfD did know that. And not a single of the delete !votes referred to any almanac paragraph. Robdurbar mentioned an almanac discussion on the talk page, and a keep !voter, Mjefm, mentioned it, but other than that, I see no-one specifically saying that "Wikipedia is not an almanac". You consider the articles to not fall under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I, along with several other users, including several administrators, consider it to fall under both that, and "Wikipedia is not a directory". Regarding the two Liverpool examples you give, the difference is that those two articles summaries various statistics of a club's history spanning more than 100 years. The articles we discuss here summaried a single statistic of a single season. BTW, my name is "Elisson", "E-L-I-S-S-O-N", not "Ellison" or "Ellisson". Swedish. Not American or British or Australian or something like that. Not very important, but hey, I prefer to correct it instead of happily ignore that people spelling my name wrong. Do note, you are not alone. Not even most Swedes get it right, often spelling or saying "Eliasson" (note the a), which is a much more common surname. – Elisson • T • C • 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me again, Elisson. I'm from South America and not a first language English speaker either. Well, I did notice what was added to WP:NOT Someone pointed out that under WP:NOT the article was eligible for deletition and I read that section, I checked the page's history, and it turns out that it had been recently added by Robdurbar, after the deletition was proposed. I removed it (under another IP) because it was there to favour the deletitionist side and there had been no consensus reached to add it. I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory, and I wouldn't like to see phone numbers or facts of regular people around, but these articles contain basic information available for any kind of researcht that helps people in different ways. Plus, this article is a sub-article. Wikipedia articles have a lot of subarticle. Practically ever general article I read has a lot of subarticles! In this case, the FA Premier League 2006-07 article has the top scorers summary and a link to the goalscorers articles for more information. Where are people supposed to look to find out how many goals has Player X scored in that season. This article has benefited in a personal way and has in fact increased my knowledge of English football, which I admire, and it has also contributed to some users professionally, as Mjefm said. And the Liverpool articles wouldn't qualify in the "Wikipedia is not a Directory" section of policy? I think that the articles are in fact useful, but they are very similar to the gaoslcorer articles and would qualify in the same article category. I'll give you another example then: American Airlines destinations190.40.164.57 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- [Remove indentation] I withhold my claim that the article fails WP:NOT, with or without the almanac paragraph. I see no reason to believe that the closing admin used that paragraph when closing the discussion. And that is what this DRV is about. Just because an article can have subarticles, does not mean it should have subarticles. The number of goals a player has scored in a specific season is a perfectly fine statistic to include in the player's article. And once again, "I like it" is not a good argument. I see no reason to comment on the AA destinations list, as it has no connection whatsoever with this DRV, and using the argument "why shouldn't this be kept if we have an article on that" is no good either. – Elisson • T • C • 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The big question still is, how does this article falls under WP:NOT? It is not a birectory, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it had excessive detail, such as time, location and the way it was scored, then I would agree it being an indiscriminate collection of information. In the player's articles, the number of goals scored by each player is not season wise but carreer-wise per club, and it only includes domestic league goals. And, those are not regularly updated, therefore unreliable and it is hard to keep the actual count of how many goals the player has scored in his professional carreer. And having this article is the only way to keep up with the summary in the league pages. How would we know which players have 7 goals and score one to move to 8 so that he is added to the summary?190.40.164.57 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." Wiktionary defines directory as (1) "A list of names, addresses etc., of specific classes of people or organizations, often in alphabetical order or in some classification." Pretty clear to me. There are of course various types of directories, some more useful than others (for example FIFA World Cup hat-tricks, a featured list). "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Everything that is true is of course useful for at least someone. That does not mean it should be included. There is nothing that stops you from adding a career table to a player article. Both featured articles on footballers, Denis Law and Gilberto Silva, along with two of the good articles, Adam Boyd and Pelé, has career tables of various kinds. Your last comment has already been answered. Either you go to the Swedish State Television teletext page found here, or you check the stats at the official Premier League site (or any other such site). – Elisson • T • C • 14:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- These articles don't fall anywhere close under the section "WIkipedia is not a directory". It doesn't even come close to the examples written there. It is not a list of ordinary people that have done nothing of notoriety, or something with entries relation with the future (TV/Radio guides as mentioned there, odds of scoring again in this case). I guess Deaths in 2006 and American Airlines destinations are also direcories, therefore they violate policy. What makes you think that a list of hat-tricks is more useful than a list of goalscorers on important football leagues? Yes, in fact, some articles have a list of the goals scored, but that doesn't occur with other players such as Nwankwo Kanu Thierry Henry, and with almost all players in Wikipedia. You may find the goalscorers list in the Swedish League site, yes, on the English one, probably not. I had never seen it before actually, and you showed it to me for the first time. It is quite hidden and it is on flash. It is also hardly scrollable and you can't see which player actually is which. I scrolled down the list (which I took a long time) and I found two Coles. Which is which? I know about at least 3 Coles in the FA Premier League 2006-07. The list in the Premier site isn't quite reliable. By the way, it is me, 190.40.164.57. As I said, my IP changes every now and then.190.41.53.97 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- You say potato, I say potato, the closing admin said potato. Apparently, many users believed that the articles fell under WP:NOT, and if many users believe that, then that's probably how WP:NOT should be interpreted. Again, I won't comment on other lists and directories not related to this DRV. "What makes you think that a list of hat-tricks is more useful than a list of goalscorers on important football leagues?" Perhaps the fact that one is a featured list, and the others have been deleted? You say not all players have a career table, I can only answer {{sofixit}}... The external links. You haven't even clicked on them have you? The Swedish Television teletext site has the top scorers of the FA PL (>=7 goals currently), Serie A (>= 6 goals), La Liga (>= 5 goals), Bundesliga (>= 6 goals), Ligue 1 (>= 7 goals). Isn't that enough for you? You call the official FA Premier League site unreliable? Great, if that's your view on what a reliable source is, I don't think there is any point in me discussion this with you anymore. – Elisson • T • C • 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. The fact that many users believed it doesn't make it fall under WP:NOT. Many users in the AfD also believed it should be kept. Why shouldn't this article be on a featured list too? Why is the other one a featured list anyway? Other than because of some reason that article became a featured list, why is it better than this one? You also don't comment on those articles because they clearly violate policy if this one does too. Those articles are very much alike and only differ on the subject. I hadn't clicked on the Swedish site because from all I read, I understood that it contained only Swedish goalscorers. The Premier Site is not exactly unreliable, but it lacks information. As I said, in some occasions, you can't tell which player is which, and in all occasions you can't know which team does a player belongs to if you don't have any previous knowledge. 190.41.53.97 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore. The opening sentence at WP:5 explicitly states that Wikipedia includes elements of specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. Assuming that such a thing as a world soccer, er football, encyclopedia exists, it is not unreasonable to expect that a list of goals for each major competition would be listed. Wikipedia can enhance that by providing more detail, since Wikipedia is also not a paper encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not a newspaper, but, a historical summary of goal scorers is not a newpaper article either. The single scores are news, but, the collection is not. Another argument made against these articles was that it could result in thousands of articles. To this, I only point to an archived message by Jimbo, that was linked in another recent AFD: [1]. -- Neier 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- There were, by the way, no valid sources in any of these articles (the ones that I saw, anyway) that were valid for Wikipedia purposes; there was only a link to the league's website. That makes them quite different from Jimbo's example of the good article in the message you posted and more similar to the one-liners. Dekimasu 12:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dekimasu, there is no particular source for the article but what contributors read from hews articles. For example, whenever I contributed, I used livescore.co.uk to see some goalscorers for the day and added them ASAP. However, the goalscorers there are match-wise and they are removed one or two days after the match usually.190.40.164.57 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Procedural Question: There were twelve other articles deleted with this AFD. Should all of them be restored/protected like the first article has been, for the time being?? Neier 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since they in no important way differed from the undeleted one (except for having other clubs with other players that scored other amounts of goals), I don't think that is necessary. They all looked alike. – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Closer's comment I consider this a bundled nomination, per the request on my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not ESPN soccernet. --Howard the Duck 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion and redelete - carefully noting that a lot of the participants in this debate are treating it as a second AfD, fundamentally wrong. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IWORKEDHARDONTHATNOWIMGOINGTOLEAVEYOUDELETIONISTB**T**D are not valid reasons for keeping/undeletion, neither in the AfD or in the DRV. Martinp23 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, seems fair and square. Punkmorten 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
|
