Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders' transactions


 * 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 to 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season. Let's go with Merge. Nakon 04:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders' transactions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and zero sources. This isn't encyclopedic; we're providing a mirror for the Roughriders transaction sheet from 2008 with no context whatsoever. ~ RobTalk 05:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hah! This takes me back. Someone had added this huge chart on the original article for the 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season and I moved it here because it took up too much space and cluttered it up. I felt bad for deleting it since someone put so much work into it. Too bad, so sad. Cmm3 (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge with 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season. The important transactions can go there. The less important ones don't need to be here. Smartyllama (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be a consensus against keeping this article. But are we merging or are we deleting? Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete after migrating any relevant info to the 2008 season article. My opinion only differs from Smartyllama above in that I don't think this should be kept as a redirect, because it's not a plausible search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge the important transactions to 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season and delete without a redirect. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge as this may be enough for there, but certainly not for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  07:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete although the list actually is WP:DISCRIMINATE (not as the nominator states), and the lack of sources is something that can easily be fixed, the list should still be deleted simply because it already exists in its entirety on the net. Reproducing it here is redundant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not merge. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article may very well qualify as an indiscriminate list; it contains all transactions found on the net, regardless of their importance. In any case, it's pretty much just a copy of what's on the net. I guess a merge could be OK, but I'm a fan of WP:MERGEWHAT. Unless we specify precisely what info is to be merged (along with sources, please), or unless there's a volunteer to do this now, I'd say deletion is the best option. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a semantical difference. No-one is seriously arguing against not merging particularly notable transactions, and no-one is seriously arguing against merging the entire thing. The arguments actually being made (when you ignore the actual labels being given to them) seem to support a selective merge that only includes noteworthy transactions. ~ RobTalk 02:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but I must add that one person explicitly objected to merging. Another "delete" !vote said they were ok with merging but they wanted consensus on WHAT to merge. There are still some issues to be discussed.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Like the past relisting says, there is a consensus against keeping the article, but a consensus on either merge or delete has not been reached. &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just for the record, it doesn't really already exist on the net, I just moved it to this recently to save all the info. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was as of last year, but it looks like the Riders and CFL have taken down old transaction logs. ~ RobTalk 01:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They still have ones from 2013. They may have removed some but I don't think they went back that far (2008). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I know they want back at least to 2007 on the CFL site. To find them, you had to click back (i.e. what you got to 2009, they would show the links to 2007 and 2008, but they weren't easy to find). ~ RobTalk 03:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:17, 7 May 2016 (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.