Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China PR national football team results (1990–1999)


 * 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

China PR national football team results (1990–1999)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is a list of statistics, and therefore violates WP:NOT RadManCF open frequency 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All it needs is a little bit of context, tossing in just enough buzzphrases and fluff to change it to a "therefore it doesn't violate WP:NOT". Easy fix.  Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add that this is one of several spinoffs of China national football team results and China PR national football team. These would be paragraphs in the main article except then the article would be as big as China itself.  As a section, I don't think there's even the remotest chance that this would get deleted. Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is no different from Republic of Ireland national football team 1990s results, Scotland national football team 1980–1999 results, and many other similar pages. I agree with Mandsford that there needs to be an introductory section to provide context and highlighting, with sources, some notable results would be good, also. However, these are editorial matters. If it is thought that pages consisting of, mostly, national football team results are inappropriate then that is a different matter; in that case a discussion should be started on the principle rather than trying to pick off random pages. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, I nominated this page while patrolling new pages. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 22:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This, and other similar articles, are certainly deprecated by WP:NOT. There is no commentary, no context, no sourced comment.   Encyclopaedia articles are made of more than just almanac statistics - and made of even more than just "buzzphrases and fluff". Knepflerle (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Encylopaedia articles are, but Wikipedia articles on sports sure aren't... Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do indeed hope that more of Wikipedia's sports articles aspire to be true encyclopaedia articles in the future! Knepflerle (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete in its current state per WP:NOTSTATS. I honestly couldn't give two hoots whether other articles have similar lists, that is no reason why this one should be kept. A page consisting of nothing but a list of football results would be fine in a yearbook or almanack but has no place on Wikipedia. -- Big  Dom  18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is more than a conventional encyclopedia-as the basic principles say, it also contain many of the elements of an almanac, such as these. Perhaps we should make it clear by say it also combines ALL of the functions of an almanac.    DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever seeing in our basic principles that this project has all the functions of an almanac, yet we very clearly have WP:NOT in one of our core policies. I think you are mistaken. Knepflerle (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Knepflerle has a good point. If you think that Wikipedia should be an almanac, make the suggestion at the Village Pump. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Mandsford. There are lists of football results for most countries (see Category:National football team results) - why pick on this one, other than its being a new page?   Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is precedent for inclusion, and as has been stated several times, with a lead paragraph, it'd be a perfectly valid list. The article was nominated less than 12 hours after its creation, so there was hardly time allowed for the addition of prose. matt91486 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - DGG stated "Wikipedia is more than a conventional encyclopedia-as the basic principles say, it also contain many of the elements of an almanac" then Knepflerle replied "I don't recall ever seeing in our basic principles that this project has all the functions of an almanac". This is a straw man argument. DGG does not say that this project has all the functions of an almanac he says that it also contain many of the elements of an almanac. Many not all and this is supported by Five pillars that states it incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. A distinction with a clear difference. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a valid list and there is precedent for inclusion. --Carioca (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (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.