Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A


 * 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 keep. Melchoir 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A
This is a nomination to delete:

These pages have information on the main pages of the world cup and are linked to the main pages. Therefore these pages are useless and a copycat of the match reports at fifaworldcup.com. Kingjeff 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to list this myself for some time. Delete. Dare I say, "World Cupcruft"? Having results is somewhat acceptable, in my opinion; having complete match reports is not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. TheProject 23:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the precedent that's been put forward already, I'm going to change to neutral on this. However, I believe we need a policy on this. I'm quite sure extensive boxscores for every game in the World Cup of Hockey, or for the World Baseball Classic, etc. would most likely be unwanted. (The fact that we already have detailed boxscores for World Series matches bothers me somewhat.) It's my opinion that a summary of one sporting event should not take longer than three lines (much akin to the *short-style* boxscores in baseball), and the fact that this is the FIFA World Cup, rather than the World Cup of Hockey, or the World Baseball Classic, etc. should not have any bearing on this. Wikipedia should not become a sports statistics database, which we are coming dangerously close to at the moment, IMO. TheProject 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The key word being indiscriminate - for which I don't think this qualifies. Jooler 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, verifiable information about the biggest quadrennial sporting event. Probably needs some more match descriptions (which can be verified from BBC match reports, CNN match reports, whatnot), but as they stand it's a good starting point. Sam Vimes 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Yes, these pages contain some information from the main article, 2006 FIFA World Cup, which is currently 52k large. They also contain a great deal of additional information vital to understanding the matches: lineups, cards and substitutions. As evidenced by the versions of these articles in seven other Wikipedia languages, there is still more information to be added, such as statistics and formation diagrams. Just look at es:Copa Mundial de Fútbol de 2006/Grupo A, for example. The articles also contain links to Wikipedia biographies of the players and WikiNews articles on the games, things one is not going to find on fifaworldcup.com. And finally, if anyone is worrying about precedent, I don't see any attempt to merge Category:2004 European Football Championship into a single article. Melchoir 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article will grow as the group stages continue. The information at the FIFA site is only a reference and needs to be cited as such. The match reports at FIFA can turn into dead links. This information should become stable. If these articles disappear, we will simply have people continuously padding out the main article which is already sizeable. -- Alias Flood 23:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Informative and useful database for anybody wishing to find information about the World Cup in the future, also as per above --Jackyd101 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep Informative, useful, etc. Batman2005 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information provided by the group articles is very useful.  And the match reports at fifaworldcup.com are just external links. They cannot take the place of Wikipedia's own articles. --Neo-Jay 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. - Mike МиГ 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the question about this AfD is, is every detail about each match in the World Cup significant? TheProject 00:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would guess you don't know much about football, or don't do many pub quizzes. Jooler 10:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a football fan -- not a nutty football fan, mind you, but still a fan nonetheless. That last comment almost makes the articles under consideration seem like trivia, which would be a good reason to delete. However, given the precedent for almost ridiculous detail for major sporting events, I'll concede that. TheProject 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * These articles apperantly do not include every detail. They just provide the major information about each match. --Neo-Jay 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment These articles do not cite any references. This is a big problem.  I do think they should be kept, but references need to be added, all of the information in these articles needs to be able to be verified.Paul C/T+ 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment They do now. OK. BlueValour 01:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No they don't... just adding an external link to the main fifa site does not cite the information in the article, that is just borderline link farming and advertising. The actual websites where the information was taken from is needed for every game on each page... I added a few of them to groups A and B, the rest still need them. Paul C/T+ 02:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep can have far more detailed info than the parent page alone. Xtra 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all Obviously useful and encyclopaedic. It overlaps with a FIFA site? - sure - most WP articles overlap with some other site; it is called verification! BlueValour 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. —DDima (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. Tags can be used to discourage, editing, and deleting or damaging these articles is patently against consensus. ReeseM 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Further enhance encyclopedia, giving users something they might not be able to locate on FIFA X years from now. Palffy 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not for reporting news as per Wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 03:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: These artices are not just news. They are  current sports-related events.  --Neo-Jay 03:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may be current sporting event but it's still news. I beleive Wikipedia policy says this is npt a news site. Kingjeff 03:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. At the moment it is news - when the World Cup is over it will be history and notable history at that. BlueValour 03:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: How can you distinguish these two concepts? 2006 FIFA World Cup is also a news. Do we need to delete it also? --Neo-Jay 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As you said it's a current event. The main article serves it's purpose unlike the group articles. Kingjeff 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The main article and the group articles serve different purposes. They provide different information. --Neo-Jay 03:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The main articles with the scores provide information. The group articles is simply news. Kingjeff 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, so funny. Just let me know how do you distinguish current events and simply news?  --Neo-Jay 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there should be just the number of goals, small details, that's it, all of this information can be found at the fifaworldcup.com so this much detail is really not needed-- mo -- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Really? All the information in Wikipedia can be found on the Internet or in libraries, so the whole Wikipedia is really not needed. --Neo-Jay 03:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is the stupidest Afd nomination I've seen in a long time. Jooler 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If these articles get deleted perhaps we should split into USA and RestOfWorld WP (this comment is probably a joke born out of frustration with minor baseball players getting articles whilst the biggest sporting event in the world might get deleted).)? BlueValour 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:United_States_May_Not_Be_Center_of_the_Universe Jooler 04:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha. We the people from other countries should go to Afd such articles as 2005 World Series box scores. --Neo-Jay 04:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, let's not get all nationalistic here. I'm not from the States either. As for that box score ... yuck. (We need a policy for this.) TheProject 04:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I apologize. --Neo-Jay 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, I do believe it's the match reports in 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A under consideration here, not 2006 FIFA World Cup... TheProject 04:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep! I check these pages all the time and they're layed out very well, with information not found anywhere else on wikipedia. I really see no reason why these should be deleted. zipmon 05:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The information is very useful for lineups and substitutes and can be used to store more information about the games instead of clogging up the main 2006 world cup page. --Lummie 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Early 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No match reports there when I looked, just lineups, officials, etc. Unless you count the goal times and scorers. Rich Farmbrough 08:12 16 June 2006 (GMT).
 * Keep Good information that cannot be on main page due to size constraints. Cvene64 08:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful information, and if they're a duplicate of the main FIFA World Cup page then how about removing it from there instead of these pages. Lewispb 09:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Statistics about World Cup of more notoriety than a million articles about tiny villages in the USA
 * Strong keep Instead, I propose to remove some of the information at the 2006 FIFA World Cup page. I think, that the results at that page should be as on 2004 European Football Championship. When the WC is over, a statistic page also could be made, also as Euro 04. ka  la  ha  10:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Qualified delete If you delete this, at least merge the information with the 2006 World Cup page. 63.93.197.67 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the person who said that this is one of the stupidest AFDs I've seen in a long time. It makes far more sense for detailed information like this to be on its own sub-page, especially so the main article isn't ridiculously long. DiegoTehMexican 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a detailed review of the matches, so it won't make any sense to delete it.

But parts of it like score etc are already in the main article. Kingjeff 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read Summary style and stop making that ridiculous point. You might as well delete Speed of light because the number 299,792,458 is already in Light, or History of saffron because Saffron already mentions Cleopatra. Melchoir 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy obvious keep due to size constraints in main article. BoojiBoy 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This has nothing to do about how big the main article is. This info shouldn't even be in Wikipedia. All the group stage pages are nothing but news which is against Wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You have not answered my question: how do you distinguish current events and nothing but news? --Neo-Jay 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * nothing but news would be if we took an article straight out of the newspaper, rewrote it and posted it here as an article. This is the biggest sporting event in the world, the entire world is fixated on this event, peple from 200 nations wanted to be involved in this tournament, detailing that is certainly a current event, adding as much detail as possible (with sources of course) is important.  It would be "world cup cruft" if we were detailing what shoes each player wore, who wears their socks up or down, what size shorts people wear, which goalies use which types of gloves, etc.  As is we're posting fact, and verifiable fact at that.  Hope that helped, if not i'm sorry, but its obvious that this debate will result in a keep of all information. Batman2005 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question Neo Jay. A current event article is the main FIFA World cup 2006 article and nothing but news is the group articles. Kingjeff 14:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it might be time for you guys to give it up. Batman2005 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't an answer to Neo Jay's question. Melchoir 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Kingjeff 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neo Jay is asking you to define your terminology and expand on the general principles, if any, behind your thoughts. You have responded by restating your position on the current example. That is not an answer. I am explaining this to you so that you might understand why you are not being taken seriously. Melchoir 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank Melchoir and Batman2005. --Neo-Jay 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously some of these pages will have to be merged in due course to make a historical summary, but they are useful and interesting during the competition.--Grahamec 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Maybe an important game we can keep like the final. But to have all 64 matches is rediculus. Kingjeff 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: No it's not, it's perfectly normal and indeed desirable for the major quadrennial sporting event in the world. I take it you haven't seen one of those almanacs which record the details of every Test cricket match which has ever taken place, back to the 19th century? -- Arwel (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not almanacs. If we're going to do all 64 matches why not make an article on every Wikipedia user. Kingjeff 15:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an article on ever user, its called his user page. Batman2005 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep for reasons already amply given above. - Arwel (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep These articles make the main article shorter and easier to read, and they have a lot of useful information. No-Bullet 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; A billion World Cup viewers can't all be wrong. ;-) Keep on the basis of a notable event and wikipedia is not paper. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as the 2006 FIFA World Cup is a very notable sporting event, and putting details about the specific groups in "sub-articles" to the main article makes sense as it is preferable to the main article being of an excessive length and thus hard to read. Andrew (My talk) 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly notable, highly verifiable.  If this were 3rd-division football, then maybe delete, but the World Cup deserves extensive coverage. --EngineerScotty 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very notable, relevant information in regards to the world cup and plenty of sources and references. Subject of great importance.--Auger Martel 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is definitely cruft, but it's cruft a billion people are interested in and it would make the parent article too big if it were upmerged. Caerwine Caerwhine  17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but not yet.This article is useful during the course of the world cup but really has no place in an encyclopedia in the long term. Gerrynobody (Withdrew vote)
 * Keep. I was alarmed to see this notice at the top of the group E page, which has been my preferred source of information on that group. I haven't seen a single coherent logical argument for deleting this article. "The information exists elsewhere outside Wikipedia" is not a reason for deletion. Exoplanets are added to that page as they are discovered, which is "news", so should they be deleted as well? This afd is idiotic -- borderline infuriating. Wikipedia is not made of paper, so why do people have this mysterious urge to delete useful information from it? Are we running out of disk space? --dreish~talk 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not going to take your comment seriously. Kingjeff 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep until after the World Cup is over, at least. Right now I'm finding this a very useful source of information. After the championship is over? Maybe Palnu 18:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question:Does anyone agree to keep it till the end of the world cup? Kingjeff 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and long after. This stuff about news is daft - the SuperBowl is news when it happnes but has plenty of pages. BlueValour 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and indefinitely thereafter. At the moment I count 4 delete votes and 34 keeps, accumulated in less than 24 hours. Does this not suggest to you that your nomination was rather ill-considered? -- Arwel (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and keep it forever, obviously. Uris 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep for obvious reasons, which heathen dared list this for deletion???-- Ch ild zy ( Talk 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Absolutely not. Kingjeff 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep to create an archive of results and games for future reference, not just current reference. -- 86.138.55.85 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Quadalpha 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wish we had this sort of information for all the World Cups.   SLUMGUM    yap    stalk   21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Matei Tache 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Jared Hunt 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * HEY ADMIN Can we get on with this and just remove them from AFD, the obvious consensus here is keep! Batman2005 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, but I'm going to do it anyway. If not for Muhaidib's lone dissent, this AfD would be a textbook speedy keep. As it is, the ridiculous pile of keep votes means that the result has a snowball's chance in hell of changing within the next four days, and if we waited that long, the obsolete notices would be up for most of the rest of the First Round. I am therefore closing the AfD as a keep. Please direct any whining to my talk page. Melchoir 23:23, 16 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.