Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2005 in sports (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  20:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

August 2005 in sports
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relisting this per consensus at deletion review. This is a purely administrative action; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (User talk:The Mighty Gltalk) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There are many month year in sports articles. I'm not sure why this one was ever singled out. As per the deletion review log, I suggest this one should remain as Keep before we discuss the merits of all items of this nature. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Not fussed personally whether we keep or delete these, but merging is not practical per my comments at the Deletion Review. Leaning keep because if we are going to delete we should bulk nominate them as they are essentially identical articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge I would encourage a bulk nomination. Wikipedia is not an almanac and sorting such unrelated events by date is not an encyclopedic or useful article subject. Could be moved to Portal space similar to Portal:Current events, as all this is is a list of news briefs and game outcomes that don't have anything to do with each other besides date. Reywas92Talk 22:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please think about the practicilites of a merge and reconsider this part of your !vote. The effort needed to merge the article (see Deletion review/Log/2018 March 20) far outweighs the benefit to the encyclopaedia. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I support a simple delete, with encouragement to expand 2005 in sports with major events, though there are of course also already separate articles for individual sports' seasons or years. These month articles have too much news and trivia to be worth keeping, and it's all redundant. I don't see the point of keeping a combined calendar of diverse events. Reywas92Talk 00:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep No idea why this one in particular should be singled out, and a merge, as others have pointed out, is impractical given the sheer number of articles. But that doesn't mean the solution is to delete notable information. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, not my kind of article but useful to some, there's no point in merging these articles and little value in deleting them. Szzuk (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite contrary to what has been said above, WP does incorporate many of the functions of an almanac --  see WP:NOT.   This is therefore appropriate, and in general there is too much material for a merge--that obviously won;t be the case in all topics, but it will be for sports.     DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Too much info to merge. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 18:05, 21 April 2018 (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.