Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All time rugby results for Canada


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All time rugby results for Canada

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A classic example of what Wikipedia is not. Unusual and notable results may deserve a mention on the Canada national rugby union team article but Wikipedia is not a repository to store every sporting result of a team, national or not. Nuttah68 08:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The first thing Wikipedia is not is # 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I don't see under what criteria this has been listed for deletion.  It's not an indiscriminate list for example.  Perhaps the nominator could be more specific? Nick mallory 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Nuttah68 10:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly. What's 'indiscriminate' about this list?  It's criteria for inclusion are clear and objective and there's nothing the least bit 'confusing' about it.  If this article can be improved by adding information boxes to it then add the information, rather than simply deleting it. Nick mallory 10:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's messy, but... I think something can be salvaged out of it, and it is notable since it's for the national team. But... it's listcruft to me, so Null vote  Good for/against. --Whsitchy 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick, keep it. There is nothing indiscriminate about it, and it compliments the entry. Geez, if you deleted every page like this, well, you'd be staying up late night, because there is lots junk on wikipedia. What is "listcruft"? 216.254.208.116 20:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC) — 216.254.208.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Nor is it confusing or messy. Its a list, pure and simple. Perhaps you can explain to me what is wrong with simple lists? How does it effect the neatness of another seperate entry, or how is it not neat? 216.254.208.116 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) — 216.254.208.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Delete - please see #9 on WP:NOT. Also, the fact that "there is lots of junk on Wikipedia" is not a reason to avoid deleting them; on the contrary, it's exactly why "junk" ought to be deleted i.e. to clean up Wikipedia. --Hnsampat 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It is the top level of Canadian rugby after all (for what that's worth) and I don't see that it violates WP:NOT. Clarityfiend 03:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I expect that a large percentage of these matches are notable in there own right, making this a list of notable international matches. Hardly indiscriminate. John Vandenberg 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of notable events does not become notable in and of itself. But the question here is not about notability but rather the fact that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be mere lists of statistics.--Hnsampat 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang a minute, there are no statistics on this article. The results at the end of each entry are part of a summary.  The purpose of the list is to list international games.  That is an appropriate reason for a list.  Let me ask you this ... how would you present this information in order to make it appropriate for Wikipedia?  John Vandenberg 16:18, 3 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.