Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia national football (soccer) team season 2008


 * 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. AfD isn't a court of law, precedent does not hold sway, consensus does. Precedent may well influence an editor's opinion but it should not be the main reason of a deletion rationale. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Australia national football (soccer) team season 2008

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

per past precedent. – PeeJay 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages as part of the same series:

and the following pages as similar articles for other countries:


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- Bduke (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 1) The past precedent doesn't reflect a good reason to delete and no wiki policy was cited for their deletion. 2) This information can't be merged into the main page for Australian soccer without the page becoming too long, and so qualifies for separate pages. 3) Articles qualify under WP:LISTS as lists of information. 4) At the very least, the 2006 article has references for the matches, so at least that page is notable. It would be very surprising that you couldn't turn up a newspaper report on each of those matches in any major Australian newspaper. Assize (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic content and in my view qualifies under WP:LISTS. The classification by year could be debated eg. discrete World Cup qualifying campaigns may be an alternative, but as a hold-all I think this basis for classification is as good as any.  Murtoa (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per reasons given by Assize. I see no reason why these should be deleted just on the basis of precedent. There is a lot of high quality content in these articles. Jared Wiltshire (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per reasons given by Assize. Why on earth would you suggest deleting these well made pages. The past precedent is not really applicable for above reasons. These are a series of well made and edited pages that give accurate season by season results for the Australian football team, as is done for countless other sports. I am getting fed up with people suggesting endless, needless deletions. Create people! Not destroy.... Robert Fleming (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Assize and WP:NOTPAPER. A single past precedent is, at best, problematic as grounds upon which to determine deletion outcomes. AFD is not a policy setting forum and the number of contributors to each individual nomination debate are minuscule. Without having seen the original 'precedent' articles themselves (which may well have been quite different to what we have here) in my view that deletion debate may well have been wrongly decided. Debate   木  12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom Ban  Ray  17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Assize. There's no policy reason to delete these articles, and they fit in with the patterns of building up year-by-year articles on sports teams. matt91486 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Without a specific policy violation I see no reason to delete any of these articles. They appear to be a valid under WP:LISTS and  there is no policy as far as I know that says that precedent in an AfD become policy. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment When I used "per past precedent" as my reason for these articles to be deleted, I included a link to the previous AfD discussion in order to provide a quicker way of writing out several reasons for deletion. The Denmark articles were just the same as the ones being discussed here, so the reasons for their deletion should relate to this discussion too. In short, in my opinion, results of the Australian national football team should be listed in YYYY in Australian football (soccer) articles or the List of Australia national football team results. Such huge detail is not required for every single match of the Australia national football team or any other national team. Precedent has been set for this type of article and I see no reason why it should be ignored for Australia, Iran or Japan's national teams. – PeeJay 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no inherent nor policy reason why editors can not provide details on the season of a national football(soccer) team as do editors who create extremely detailed articles on the season of each NFL team. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you are using the point that other stuff exists to support your argument. This is inappropriate in an AfD discussion of this type. Football club season articles (using Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08 as an example) provide only a few lines of prose on each game (perhaps too much, considering the number of matches in a club season). However, they do not include irrelevant information such as the matchday squad as that could be considered an overload of information. The articles being discussed here are very much in danger of doing such a thing. – PeeJay 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct that other stuff exists should not a valid argument in an AfD discussion to try and assign notability by saying that something is notable because other stuff exists, that was not my point. I do not believe (correct me if I am wrong) that this is a discussion on the notability of Australia national football (soccer) team season 2008.  My real point was to ask where is the policy/guideline that says that the way this article provides information about the football season is incorrect?    --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You would be hard pressed to find such a policy, as I'm fairly sure none exists at the minute. – PeeJay 09:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per User:Assize. Articles in question are well-presented and referenced lists, and I cannot see any policy which would call for their removal.  I do not know what the quality of the articles deleted in the precedent discussion provided was, but if they were similar in quality to these, then I think it was a bad precedent.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep I think that part of the rationale for deleting the Denmark articles last year was that some felt that too much detail was being devoted to each game. Looking through the list above, you may be able to say the same thing about the Australian articles; but, the Iran article especially does a good job at presenting the information.  That means it's more of a content issue, and not something for AFD. Neier (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge somewhere. For a start, the national team doesn't have "seasons".  A summary of matches played would be fine, but sites like ozfootball.net are more suited to almanac style data.  Articles like these started out as that, then someone added the goal scorers, then someone added the yellow cards, then someone added the complete squads... TBH WP:FOOTBALL probably has a standard on these sorts of things already? -- Chuq (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2008 (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.