Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Chicago Bears season detailed game summaries


 * 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 merge. Little support for keeping this as a standalone article in policy or in popular opinion, as far as I can tell. "Detailed summaries" would seem to just be a euphemism for the kind writing which Speciate probably correctly says is precluded by the "Wikipedia is not journalism" clause. Of course, the summaries in 2006 Chicago Bears season can be expanded if the information is encyclopedic. There's nothing wrong with a paragraph or two of encyclopedic information per game, but the key word is encyclopedic. I suppose in this case that means that the information should be geared more towards explaining the importance of the events of the game in the context of the Bear's 2006 season, the 2006 NFL season, and football in general; rather than just a playlog as you'd see in the game's writeup the next day in the paper. This advice is not binding, it's just guidance that will hopefully be helpful. This was a vastly more detailed closing summary than I usually give, but this seemed like a confusing situation. W.marsh 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 Chicago Bears season detailed game summaries

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I really hate do to this, but I am concerned that this article is an overlong rewrite of 2006 Chicago Bears season. I know that a lot of work went into making this page, but the real question is; is Wikipedia the place for a play-by-play description of every game of the season? This article could also be the first of similar articles for every season of every major league team in every sport. There are perfectly verifiable sources peppered through the article, I am unsure of notability. Speciate 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While it's the product of hard work and I appreciate the level of detail, there's nothing here that isn't in a lot of other websites. I agree that it's a bad precedent to start.  This is a case of someone using Wikipedia as a free host for a webpage. Mandsford 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2006 Chicago Bears season – I honestly don't see much of a reason why all of these summaries can't just be added to 2006 Chicago Bears season. I don't see why there is a necessity for two separate articles.  The scoring summary might be too much information, but everything else (the game summaries) can just be added to 2006 Chicago Bears season.  The extensive game summaries are a great and welcome addition to Wikipedia, but in my opinion, the summaries could just be placed on 2006 Chicago Bears season and have the same effect; it'd be best, in my opinion, for it all to be in the same place.  Again, the information is quite appreciated, but it doesn't really need to be in a separate article, does it?  Ksy92003  (talk)  06:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as each allegedly notable play has a source that explicitly says the play was amazing, unusual, or otherwise notable, merging the information is acceptable. But the article flirts with violating points 1, 3 and 5 here and points 4 and 5 here. Speciate 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see where this has the potential of becoming a problem. In my opinion, if the game summary can be drastically shortened, then I don't think there should be a problem with that.  In its current state, it is close to bordering the WP:NOT points you referred to, but if it could be shortened and merged to 2006 Chicago Bears season then I don't see any severe issue with that then.  Ksy92003  (talk)  07:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Ksy92003. Well-written but violates WP:NOT. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, Wikipedia is not a game summary/result/statistics guide.-- JForget 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Undecided per above and Comment. As the creator of this article, I have an interest in it. It should either be Kept or Merged. I understand the bandwidth concerns. I also realize that WP is not a game summary/etc. guide, but some of the text on this page reports notable occurrences that may be unobtainable without doing extensive research. I originally created this page because the 2006 Chicago Bears season article was running too long for good article status. Most of the game summary text for this article was originally on the 2006 CBs article. It was updated a bit and proofread for this one. I understand that some of the text on the page may not be notable, but some of it is, and further it may not be available on other websites unless research and cross examination with other information is performed. For example, in week five Robbie Gould broke the Bears franchise record for consecutive field goals made in a season. Text such as that should definitely be merged to the 2006 CBS page if this article is not kept. I'm not extremely versed in Wikipedia's rules and standards, but if this is a situation where compromises can be made, I think the best solution would be to have this article merged with the 2006 CBs article as long as those who think it should be deleted believe and agree that such action will not hurt 2006 CBs's chances of achieving good article status. The only reason 2006 CBs has not achieved good or featured article status is that some(questionably) believe it contains fair use violations. If this article is Merged into 2006 CBs, this article should not make 2006 Chicago Bears season article too long for good article consideration. If it does, then this article should be Kept. It would be unfair to hurt 2006 CBs's chances of achieving such status by just flat out deleting this one.  RMelon 01:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything notable would have citations, not just be something seen while watching the games on TV. And I think that the GA length rules exclude infoboxes, images and citations. Transfer the information over. Speciate 03:17, 22 October 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.