Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (more or less). Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;T&#08596;C 00:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005
And basically every other article in the Category:2005 English cricket season matches, which is hundreds of articles. Wikiepdia is not: any spiel that comes out of the mouth of Bob Costas (or whoever his British equivalent is). I think several hundred thousand cricket games have been played in the world (multiply that times the number of sports out there) and we've got millions of poor articles, written in a completley unencyclopedic manner, that made the Tuesday paper and were lining parrot cages on Wednesday. Important games should have their own artciles, but these aren't them. -R. fiend 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

'Note to all voters: These articles are temporary''. At the end of the season, they will be merged, under the auspices of WikiProject Cricket into seperate articles (here, Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005, and National League Division One in 2005). Please take this into account when voting in this discussion. Cheers, smoddy 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)'''


 * Keep. We debated this not that long ago. This article is being transcluded in 2005 English cricket season (15-31 May) as a result of that VFD debate. David | Talk 15:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not again...*sigh*. Speedy keep per Votes for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005. Sam Vimes 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC) (Edit: I should mention at this point that I wrote this article) Sam Vimes 22:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki this and all other articles on recent individual cricket matches to Wikinews; failing that, do a proper merge . Abstain. (I was unaware of the temporary nature of these pages.) These are not encyclopedia articles. They are news reports. I don't know how many cricket matches there are per year, but MLB plays 2,430 regular-season games. Articles on the World Series and national cricket championships belong in an encyclopedia; articles on individual games do not, unless there's something particularly interesting about them. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  16:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles cannot be merged because they are being transluded in multiple articles. Merging them into those articles would result in duplicate content and would be a maintenance nightmare. Morwen - Talk 16:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that now. Merging would indeed be messy. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note also that the "national cricket championship matches" - akin to the baseball World Series - that Android79 speaks of, do not exist in England - instead, the regular season tables determine who becomes champion. Sam Vimes 16:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why not summarize the season as a whole? No doubt plenty of dead tree is used in England to describe the progress of the season as a whole and of individual teams during the season. This can be done without describing every match in excessive detail. I'm not very familiar with how Wikinews works, but it looks like there's nothing being added about cricket in England. This sort of content would be perfect there. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is correct, and it is exactly what we are doing - in a format very similar to what dead tree is used for in Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, a yearly dead tree publication in England (yes, it DOES describe every match in excessive detail). I can't see the harm in describing it - it is verifiable knowledge Sam Vimes 19:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep james gibbon  16:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems the other VfD came when I was out of town, and while I try to keep up with older VfDs I do miss some (particularly as VfD is so huge, a reason why I support several new speedy proposals). It seems that the main defense of these "articles" is that they are not to be their own pages but "sub-pages". What exactly is the difference? There's a "/" in the middle of the name? They still come up in Random page searches, they have all the characteristics of "real" pages, but with longer names. As someone pointed out recently AC/DC is not a subpage of AC. That excuse is a cop-out. Are we going to see Giants vs. Brewers April 17, 1967? "Anderson hits it toward the rightfield wall, its going...going... it's good! Out of the park! The crowd is on their feet, Higgins and Maloney are brought home and this game is far from over!" (OK, I made all that up; I know very little about baseball, particularly from the 60's). -R. fiend 16:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The main defence is that they're part of bigger articles on the entire season - and because each match is relevant to several articles, (in this case: 2005 English cricket season (15-31 May), Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005 and National League Division One in 2005. The reason why they have to be in the article namespace is so that the content can be picked up by mirrors such as answers.com Sam Vimes 16:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when do we give any thought to what the mirrors when deciding what's best for wikipedia? -R. fiend 16:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ask Jimbo. Policy on images has moved to better suit mirror sites. Hiding 23:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, I doubt it hurts anyone to be helpful to the mirror sites. Sam Vimes 16:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Brewers didn't exist in 1967, and they never would have played the Giants during the regular season if they had. ;-) A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * And I doubt either team had a Higgins or Maloney either. -R. fiend 17:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per the last discussion, and "random page" should be regarded as a minor function not the top priority. Kappa 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to wikinews or a wikicities project. I, too, somehow missed Votes for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005, where I certainly would have voted to delete. Given the split result (quite a few merge, transwiki, and delete votes) I don't find it very useful as a precedent. I do find setting a precedent for including detailed results of all of the tens of thousands/year of regular season sports meets quite troubling. Last I checked the other two sports-related WikiPortal projects are wisely avoiding this level of granularity. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not a cricket (or even sports) almanac. Several people expressed concern about this major expansion of Wikipedia's scope on the Village Pump a month ago. Niteowlneils 21:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And the argument you're using against it, that it's too detailed, flies in the face of wikipedia policy, especially . Sam Vimes 21:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I obviously failed to make my point clear. My primary concerns are A) These are news items, not encyclopedia topics, and B) It is a major expansion of the scope of Wikipedia at a time that newpages and recent changes patrol are already overtaxed, so more vandalism and patent nonsense is making it into Wikipedia unchecked, and this expansion just exacerbates the problem. Niteowlneils 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To A) I'd say that professional sports events have a significance beyond the event itself, and thus should be kept in an encyclopedia, to describe how the season progressed. We are a very detailed encyclopedia, like it or not. Point B) still comes under the No size limits policy. Sam Vimes 22:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per last week's vote. --Ngb 21:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Carnildo 21:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * These articles are not Wikinews content. *Please* look at what we are doing at 2005 English cricket season and its various related articles before voting. --Ngb 21:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep These are a proper matter of record as is illustrated by the fact that such reports make up the largest part of the contents of Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, and people collect and read Wisden's that are over a hundred years old. Calsicol 22:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, however, is not Wisden Cricketer's Almanack. There are collected weather reports for every day of the year in every location. Are we going to see them in wikpedia as well? -R. fiend 22:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weather reports, per se, have very little significance beyond the day it's collected (although climate observations over a year probably do). Sports events, especially when collected in a seasonal wrap-up, do Sam Vimes 22:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ...especially when collected in a seasonal wrap-up. Good. Why don't you come back with that season wrap-up when you've actually finished it, then? --Calton | Talk 03:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)~
 * Because the way we're doing it now makes wikipedia one of the most updated sources on this type of knowledge. Why wait till September when the articles are going to contain content similar to this anyway? Sam Vimes 08:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2005 English cricket season is a seasonal wrap-up (or will be, I assume, when the season's over). Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005 and the like are not. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  04:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but they are necessary for the way we're doing it. Well, necessary and necessary - we can remove them and do it another way, but the net result would be extremely similar (except that it would entail more work for the editors), so why don't you put up 2005 English cricket season for deletion instead? Sam Vimes 08:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No matter how it's spun, these are news reports, emphemera by their nature. Come back when the season's over and summarize it all for us then. --Calton | Talk 03:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We decided this a week ago. There's no need to re-run the vote, jguk 06:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I simply can not see how every sports encounter is encylopedic. Next we can add every baseball game and then football and then socer and so on.  Maybe we need to create a sports almanac?  That's where information like this should be, not in an encylopedia.  They are two different books that serve very different purposes.  Vegaswikian 07:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This article feeds into Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005, National League Division One in 2005 and 2005 English cricket season (15-31 May), all of which are most definitely encyclopaedic articles. Without this page, none of those articles would be complete, jguk 07:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's create a sports almanac. While we're onto it, let's create a separate TV series wiki, a separate history wiki (honestly, who gives a toss about what happened at Battle of Uji (1180) except historians?), a separate maths wiki, a separate physics wiki...I don't see the problem with collecting all verifiable knowledge in one place. Sam Vimes 08:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I wasn't in on last week's vote either, but I'll support Cricket; I'm sure this is very important and quite encyclopedic to our British friends. Xoloz 16:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: I don't give a fig whether last week some people thought this or that. The fact is that this is a single instance in a season.  We are not a sports site, and we are not going to have a page per game for every sport, every team, every year on the professional ranks, and then the college ranks.  Forget transclusion:  no VfD debate gets to set policy, and that's what you're attempting to apply when you say that this debate is rendered moot.  (Also, by the way, what about Glamorgan v Essex 15 May 2005?)  To even suggest that we should allow this because one likes or dislikes the sport is bordering on insensibility. Geogre 03:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, by the way, what about Glamorgan v Essex 15 May 2005?> What about it? To even ask this question reveals your ignorance of the subject you are pontificating on. By long traditions of nomenclature there was no such match -- the return fixture Glamorgan v Essex was played on the 22nd April. (Note, though, that the match is referred to in both Essex County Cricket Club in 2005 and Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005). --Ngb 08:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I support a policy discussion, rather than allowing a single VfD to dictate, but shouldn't the articles be kept until the policy debate is completed, or at least advances substantially? Xoloz 09:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I think Geogre summed it all up. These are not encyclopedia articles --Naha|(talk) 04:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per Geogre. -- CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  04:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This article (although sub-article would be a better word) feeds through to four separate articles (see "What links here"). It is those articles that are the fully encyclopaedic articles summarising the season - see 2005 English cricket season for a link through to all of them. It's quite proper that we should allow detailed coverage of cricket, just in the same way as we allow detailed coverage of Star Trek, Harry Potter or mathematics. Wikipedia is not paper - projects develop (including projects we have no personal interest in). That's why it's so great, jguk 06:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or put in Wikisource or something, per above. Also, this may be grounds for an RFC or Votes for deletion/Policy consensus discussion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why, what was wrong with the consensus reached the last time we went through this with links from the village pump and RFC and the Watch page? Hiding 23:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing, I guess, except that I was unaware that that had already happened. I've checked but have been unable to find a link, could you please provide one. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they're referring to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005 Stephen Turner 13:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that that had already happened> You voted! --Ngb 13:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose majority keep isn't necessarily consensus Sam Vimes 13:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A one-vote majority is hardly "consensus", let alone precedent-setting. Niteowlneils 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, no need for me to repeat the arguments Tintin 15:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Long-term benefit ... will be merged ... get a life ... blah blah blah. Nothing has changed from last week. These articles will cease to be so in time; why can people not appreciate this?  It is true; it is verifiable; the end result will be encyclopedic.  smoddy 15:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Another question I feel I need to bring up: is anyone going to address the unencyclopedic and generally just plain poor writing style of these articles? My Giants/Brewers parody above was an exaggeration, but not enough of one. And I don't want to hear that that's how "Wisdens" does it. As it stands I think most of this info is terribly trivial. Why not do a season wrap-up with a chart giving the teams, final score, etc? The whole "this is part of a larger article" argument is crap. It's its own article, even if it is made into a "sub-page". -R. fiend 16:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you grasp the "long term" thing? In the end, these articles will cease to be articles in their own right.  They will become part of proper articles, in a good, encyclopedic style, in the fullness of time.  Is this concept too hard to grasp? smoddy 16:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. What's the delay? If they're not going to be articles "in their own right" does that mean you will be merging them? Why not now? Why the poor prose? If this is a work in progress and these aren't meant too be articles then why not work on them offline? You seem to be admiting that these are news reports that will somehow become articles (well, not articles, because you just said they won't to be articles in their own right). So what exactly is the deal with them? -R. fiend 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you specify exactly why you think this is poor prose? As far as I can see this is a description of how the match unfolded - yes, it includes vivid adjectives, but as far as I can see wikipedia doesn't ban vivid prose, and the article praises those who did well in the match - by perfectly objective criteria, such as scoring runs and getting people out. Merely quoting statistics and results, now THAT is poor prose (in fact, it's not prose at all...). Yes, it's in a newspapery style, but that's not forbidden either (see Guide_to_writing_better_articles). The only thing it possibly lacks is an introduction to the subject it treats - I can understand that. However, that is because the pages onto which it is transcluded (meaning that the entire content of the page is included) give an introduction to the topic already - it becomes obvious from the context of the page it is on. Reading "This was a game of cricket played in the National League in 2005" in every single section of National League Division Two in 2005 gets, believe it or not, tedious. And, as explained earlier, the content should be in the main namespace for the benefit of mirror sites Sam Vimes 17:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If this is not ephemeral, what is? Even if they're just a temporary stage in a larger project, they shouldn't be in the main namespace. PRiis 23:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Again. Hiding 23:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete a single match in a season - Wikipedia is not a sports page. JamesBurns 02:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why, then, aren't we voting to delete on Boom Town (Doctor Who) (a single episode in a season - Wikipedia is not a TV page), or Blue (Pokémon) (a single character in a video game - Wikipedia is not a gaming page), or Rita Skeeter (a single character in a book - Wikipedia is not a children's ficton page). As you can see it's easy to quote examples of this from other places than sport -- why is sport in general, and cricket in particular, any different? I really do feel the repeated VfDs on these pages are a clear example of Wikipedia's systemic bias. --Ngb 07:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While I am no fan of the articles on individual episodes pf TV shows, there is a major difference in that these shows are often referenced and viewed multiple times. They are re-run. Many are available on DVD. This is not true of these sporting events (truly importnat games, such as finals, world cup, world series, etc. are the exception, and not included in this VfD). Ther is also a huge differenc in sheer numbers. A typical season for a TV series is about 25 shows. There are thousands of cricket, basketbell, baseball, etc. games every year. -R. fiend 18:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And there are about 30 Surrey County Cricket Club matches a season... Just because this is comprehensive is not a reason to delete it. Your statement is actually beside the point anyway, given that these are, long-term, not intended to be final articles, just a legitimate stage on that journey.  Why are you so sour about this? smoddy 18:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Xaamir
 * Keep May be a single match, but it links to several pages regarding specific cricketing clubs and the domestic championship, and without individual records like this, those pages wouldn't be complete. sdb
 * User's first edit. Sam Vimes 08:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, provided that it gets merged into longer articles and then deleted at the end of the season as described. Stephen Turner 09:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, who described that scenario? Smoddy sort of haphazardly mentioned something sort of like that, but has declined to go into the specifics. Everyone else seems to be defending these articles as "part of bigger articles on the entire season", which seems to mean they are detailed breakouts, with no scheduled deletion at the season's end. If I'm wrong here someone please correct me. There's been some talk of moving these to "sub-pages", but such subpages are still separate articles. -R. fiend 20:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the assumption the editors of these pages, me incldued, have been working on for most of the time - sorry for not making that explicit enough. When the season is over near the end of September, we'll do a rewrite and copyedit of all the articles on the season, and then use "subst" or something to remove the transclusion, which will make this article content fairly redundant, so it can be deleted. But I suppose that isn't good enough either? Sam Vimes 20:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely resent that allegation. When did you ask for specifics?  If you had wanted them, I would have given them.  I also fail to see how it was haphazard.  Do you care to substantiate these allegations, or are they just mud-slinging?  I have added a note to the top of the page to inform voters about the destination of these articles. smoddy 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this sort of asks for a few specifics, does it not? Your reply responded to a different question, which this talk of "cleanup" and "rewrites" has done something to address and put me a bit more at ease. I still think if these are temporary articles (a concept which is somewhat new to me), they should be either offline or not in the article mainspace (mirrors bedamned, they aren't my concern, Wikipedia is). -R. fiend 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am not Sam Vimes (unless I am bilocating in South Wales and Norway...). Secondly, I didn't see that.  The options are
 * Have absolutely nothing in the main article namespace until well after the end of the season. This is possible, but undesirable, because we can have something now.
 * Do what we're doing: have slightly odd articles until the end of the season, then quickly merge them into good, coherent articles. That will happen in the fullness of time.
 * Basically, I think this whole ugly affair comes down to a failure of communication of intent. Perhaps this should have been better-documented.  But, as it is, it hasn't been.  That isn't a reason to delete this page, or any other such article.  Eventualism, anyone? smoddy 21:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about confusing you with Sam; this discussion is getting rather complicated. I think this discussion sort of boils down to a question of "temporary articles". As far as I can tell, no such thing exists in WP policy, and this is the first I have heard of it. That is not to say such things are inherently contrary to policy, but it does bring up some questions that go well beyond this VfD. Perhaps that is what we should be discussing, and if so, probably not in VfD. Comments or uggestions, anyone? -R. fiend 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest putting a boilerplate notice of some kind on each of the subpages' talk pages; there's at least a chance that those would get noticed. Now that I know what these articles are being used for now and that they're only temporary, I have changed my mind. I still think they would be better off on Wikinews, or at least in User space, but I can see that argument is going nowhere. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  23:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * They started out as subpages of 2005 English cricket season, to where I would have moved them back (per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Cricket) had this VfD not been started. The reason it is done like this is that each report appears in several articles: in the case of this particular one it is in Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005, National League Division One in 2005 and 2005 English cricket season (15-31 May). Our intention is to rework each of these summary articles at the end of the season so that each forms a 'season review' targeted to the team or competition in question -- this is absolutely encyclopaedic, an innovative use of Wikipedia and something that *no other resource*, either online or in print, provides. An example of this being done 'the other way' (i.e., backwards, with no pre-existing match reports to work from), is at User:Ngb/English cricket team in the 2000s -- you can see how long this is taking because information has to be dragged in from so many separate sources, and this is for just one international team (international teams play many less matches than domestic teams). --Ngb 21:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As for a way these match reports can be integrated into a good encyclopedia article, despite including match reports written in a descriptive style, see 2004 American League Championship Series Sam Vimes 21:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (Edit: although, of course, this is a finals series, the principle remains the same)
 * Delete ephemeral sports cruft. CDThieme 18:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Radient and others. This doens't belong here, where as part of a larger article or not. DES 20:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Written in a non-encyclopaedic style; only possible expansion would be the scorecard; this is a 'news item'.  It belongs in an almanac, not an encyclopaedia.  Noisy | Talk 20:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - how many times do you have to vote Keep on the same articles? Notable, encyclopaedic, verifiable.  No grounds for deletion - especially when Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort each have their own article.  Guettarda 21:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Six. smoddy 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, but those two are fictional characters in mass-marketed fictional worlds, and mass-marketed fictional worlds seem to be of similar (greater?) interest to many people than is the real world: see for example Category:Star Wars characters. The power of marketing aside, Harry Potter "sells" much more than do particular cricket matches when all are new; and a year or so from now the interest in particular 2005 cricket matches is likely to have sunk rather more quickly than the interest in Potter's 2005 adventures. -- Hoary 07:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * So now we're basing our opinion on what's encyclopaedic on crass commercial considerations? Wonderful. --Ngb 11:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll just win that argument by claiming over a billion Indians on our side, ok? Guettarda 05:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep William M. Connolley 21:48:52, 2005-07-18 (UTC).
 * Delete Not notable, not encyclopedic, etc. brenneman (t) (c)  23:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, *yawn*. James F. (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Boredom aside, transwiki to Wikinews or anyway delete from WP, following the arguments of Uncle G in the earlier VfD debate. Note that although we read there that The result of the debate was keep, the actual result was very mixed, certainly with more votes for a simple keep than for a simple delete, but with nothing like consensus. To take this mixed result to mean "keep" was entirely correct, given WP rules, but there was hardly any conclusion. -- Hoary 07:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Suddenly the bordom is back. Monkey Tennis 10:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It is highly inappropriate to keep nominating the same thing in the hope that one time you will get what you want. CalJW 19:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep again. DS1953 02:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. As long as the wikiproject is committed to maintaining this array of pages I don't see a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:55, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMO, this kind of article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. — Bcat (talk | email) 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Temporary articles
I've created a new heading here to make adding comments easier for we who have size limits with our browsers, and to try to open a discussion of temporary articles in general (see my comments above). I had never heard of such a thing before, and I think it warrants some discussion. While I think this is a good place to formulate such a discussion, I think it should soon be brought elsewhere. If I am incorrect and there is a policy or precedent for temporary articles, please point me in the right direction. Thanks. -R. fiend 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Almost all things in WP are done without there being an explicit policy saying you can do it. Really, as long as what is being done is within the aim of improving and/or adding to the encyclopaedia, it should be encouraged. New ideas, methods, approaches will be developed as we progress. Whilst they should accord to the normal WP style, we'd be fools to ourselves to prevent them on the grounds that as nobody has thought of it before, there is no explicit "policy" saying you can do it! Our goal is a better Wikipedia, not blind obeisance to "policy", jguk 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bad idea to have temporary article snippets in the main article namespace. There are ample policies and precedents that describe what a wikipedia article should be--temporary article snippets that do not meet these criteria and that never will themselves be expanded to legitimate artices have no business being in the namespace, even temporarily. Anything else requires a change of policy with a broad consensus--a couple of very obscure VFDs is not enough to justify such big change in what is acceptable as an article. If it's such a wonderful idea, why is there so much resistence to getting a broad consensus for it? (By the way, when these articles are no longer wanted, don't they have to go through the existing, labor-intensive deletion policy, or are snippets exempt from this policy as well?) PRiis 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would assume that when the content is merged, the original articles would be left as redirects, as is normal merging policy? Sam Vimes 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that they don't really take up too much room, I think it'd be nice to keep them. Category:2005 English cricket season matches is a very useful index - we shouldn't get rid of it in a hurry, jguk 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * When you say keep "them" I assume you mean keep redirects, otherwise we're back where we started. As for PRiis's comments, I'm tempted to agree. While I suppose it might not be against policy to have temporary articles, it does seem just sort of, well, strange. It also sort of opens a door that I'm sure can be abused. While I realize wikiepdia itself will always be a work in progress, this creation just to delete seems sort of contrary to wikipedia, in a way. Now, should this discussion be moved to a policy page somewhere, because that's where this is going? I think such a move would also get opinions from a wider perspective outside of this VfD. -R. fiend 19:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone can accuse the Cricket WikiProject of being bad for Wikipedia - indeed, it has done much good work for Wikipedia - and has many featured articles and featured lists to its credit. The WikiProject can hardly be compared to an instance of a rogue editor, or a newbie not used to WP ways - it would be easy to distinguish circumstances where what is happening here is being used as a precedent where it shouldn't be, jguk 20:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anyone accusing Wikiproject Cricket as being bad for Wikipedia. This VfD is about a somewhat small portion of the project, and this section at the bottom is about temporary articles, which should be seen as a separate issue entirely. This is a new thing, as far as I can tell, and if there's no policy on them there should be, whether the policy is "no temporary articles" or simple rules/guidelines for how they are used. There are issues here. Who decides what articles are temporary? I assume the originator, but since no one "owns" WP articles what happens if a contributor objects to their temporary status? How do we prevent the use of them from being abused, and people from using temporariness as an excuse for poor articles, or ones that are early stages of works-in-progress that are a jumble of cut-and-paste messes from other sources? (I am not accusing Wikiproject Cricket of doing this, but I can see it happening somewhere in Wikipedia.) At the very least there should be a template:temporary for each such article, and there should be discussion among general Wikipedians. Again, that should occur elsewhere, as it is not really a VfD issue. -R. fiend 06:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone except smoddy suggest these articles are temporary. If that is true then keep them in the User namespace, the Project Cricket (which I am not challenging) namespace, or anywhere but the main article namespace. Niteowlneils 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why the concerted and continuous attack? They were subpages to begin with.  That was attacked as being not in keeping with page-naming, so they were moved to separate pages.  Now the subpages are being VfD'd one by one.  When there is no consensus to delete the first, they move on to the next.  Now you want them userified?  Why the systemic attack on one of the top two sports in the world?  Any First Class cricket match is at least as noteworthy as a minor character in a Harry Potter book, or a DS9 episode, and they don't even get VfD'd.  Or are you saying that first class cricket matches are less important than minor Pokemon characters?  Guettarda 14:03, 20 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.