Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers


 * 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 delete all. Remember that AFD is not a vote, but rather an arguement at the basic level. The delete side argues why it should go, and the keep side gives reasons for it to stay. In this case, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a sports reporting center, nor a complete collection of all of history so we can look at wikipedia in the future for everything that has happened in the past. I like it and "we've worked really hard" are also not reasons for keeping an article. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers

 * — (View AfD)

Excessive detail, well beyond the scope of Wikipedia; this is not a news archive or data dump. These pages are similar to the month by month results currently being considered at Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:



Dsreyn 13:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I also add:

--Robdurbar 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to FA Premier League 2006-07, FA Cup 2006-07, UEFA Cup 2006-07 and UEFA Champions League 2006-07 respectively. A short summary of the leading goalscorers may be appropriate, as is already done in FA Premier League 2006-07, but a list including every goal scored is overkill, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Oldelpaso 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Far too high level of detail. Leave that to RSSSF. I don't even see the point for redirects. - fchd 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:NOT HornetMike 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm glad to see these are being delt with. See the talk on WP:NOT for my idea of specifying against alamanc material. --Robdurbar 16:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment further 9 articles added at this point Robdurbar 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep UEFA Champions League 2006-07 goalscorers and UEFA Cup 2006-07 goalscorers. Delete the rest. Forbsey 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment is 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying goalscorers being included in this? Forbsey 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it because I thought it was a slightly different issue. Worth commenting on, I think, but maybe in its own AfD if necessary. Robdurbar 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep Why make Wikipedia less informative just for the sake of it? I know this article is of great use to sport journalists (which I am) and is not 'freely' available elsewhere.  There is all sorts of 'Almanac'-style information in many encyclopaedias such as Encarta or Britannica. Mjefm 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there's issues of size (the articles get fairly big, and if we were doing this season after season after season...) and the fact that an individual Premiership goal isimply isn't that notable, as commented below. Having a list of top scorers in the season summary - notbale information. That le Sib has scored two goals this year, whilst surprising, isn't paticularly notable. --Robdurbar 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The idea is that all goals ever scored (and the people who scored them) are not inherently notable. Scope definitely plays a part in deciding what gets kept here. Just having a lot of information is not necessary, and Wikipedia's guidelines outline the amount that is acceptable. 206.213.251.31 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not ESPN/BBC Sport/etc. – Elisson • T • C • 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Mjefm, as well as the fact that this is a finite list, and will be great to have as a reference for future research on a players/club history. // Laughing Man 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep I think that this article and others of the same kind are very important and need to be kept because they help in any form of research, wether it is proffessional or personal. The template for football players which includes the amount of goals they've made for the club is not season-wise and it sometimes take long to update while this articles are usually updated instantaneously. I've looked for this kind of information in other sites and for other leageus such as Germany, and I've had no luck finding one. This articles can be consulted for knowledge about how is a player or a team is doing in the league and to know who has scored the goals for the team and how many they have. About size, these article don't grow more than they already are. Hardly you get new scorers by this time of the year. And I have to completely agree with Mjefm on why to make Wikipedia less informative just for the sake of it. Combines, these goalscorers articles don't occupy more then a megabyte on Wikipedia's servers. It's not like it includes any pictures.200.121.177.124 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not here to help in research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. – Elisson • T • C • 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And what does an encyclopedia do? I think it is helping in research when someone wants to know something.200.121.177.124 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and merge the offending pages as "Football Competitions 2006-07" containing only the notable information (per above). Any issue of size in that case is laughable. 220.236.116.110 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mjefm - also 'Excessive detail'?? would it be better lacking and general? Were not dealing with paper here the more relavant and detailed the better. People come here to learn. How is more relvant info on what they are looking at a reason for deletion? oh no I am learning more I wanted a general synopis.--Xiahou 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A professional footballer is notable, a goalscorers in top division of very notable league is even more. The goalscorer list provide information that cannot provide by player's article (some even not created). Matthew_hk   t  c  03:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep as per several speakers above. These lists provide lots of information which gives the readers of "our" encyclopedia the opportunity to see which players scored which amount of goals for a certain club in a certain season. I don't see why this would be overkill. The information is notible to the players which are notible to have an article in the encyclopedia. For those who don't have an article yet or those who are stubs these lists can easily help creating better articles on the players as more information on them is available and easily accessible, by creating links or by a simple click on the player's "what links here section". The comment that says the articles are becoming too large is total nonsense to me. So far the articles are not too large and I doubt they will be as the seasons in Europe are all half way or over already and you can assume most players who will score a goal in the second part of the season already have scored at least one goal in the first part of the season. Of course some players will be added who did not score a goal yet, but the articles won't be expanded that much anymore according to the size. A lot of people spend lots of their free time in this encyclopedia, inclusive very useful lists like these. Not that that particular fact should be a reason not to delete the articles, but I personally would feel all the time I spent in these articles would be thrown away in just one simple click for deletion. Better spend some more time in looking for total crap in this encyclopedia instead of deleting useful information. Also, the existance of these pages is already known for months. The pages have been updated ever since and are currently correct. Concluding that these have not been up for deletion in the past you can assume no one has had problems with them in the past. Everybody let the editors update these lists before nominating these for deletion in late December, so all work would be for nothing. Pretty sad in my opinion, but we will see what will happen, all I can do is give you my opinion and here it is. Cheers, SportsAddicted | discuss  04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition' does this also mean we are going to delete all scored goals information from the players articles? Thousands of players on Wikipedia have their goals specified like in these goalscoring articles mentioned on their own articles year after year as well. Some, like in Boudewijn Zenden for instance even have them specified for league, cup, Champions League etc. If the goals are not notible in one article, why would they be notible in another article? I'm not telling these statistics on the players should be deleted, but if we are going to delete these goalscoring lists as they are considered overkill then the only conclusion can be that all the goals scored by a player should not be mentioned on their article page as that would be overkill and because Wikipedia is not Soccerbase, or any other football player profile page. SportsAddicted | discuss  04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is a slightly bizzare argument - you appear to be calling for the same information to be displayed twice? I agree that a lsit of appearances and caps on a player's page is notable. But such information renders pages such as these redundent.
 * As for size issues - this is more a precdent thing. At the moment, we're talking about 14 aritcles for one season. But what if next year this is reapeated for every top level football league in Europe? And then someone adds a try scorer list for the Super Leauge? And that continues season after season after season. Suddenly, we have thoudands of fairly large pages that are a collection of facts and trivia, not knolwedge. The top scoreres in a league is relevant in a league summary. A player's total appearances and goals scored is relevant info in a page about him. Lists such as this one are not relevant. --Robdurbar 09:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a bizzare argument. Just try to find something random on Wikipedia and you will most likely find it again somewhere else on Wikipedia, but in a slightly different form. That's also the case in this situation. The stats on player pages are extremely notible to the player in question. Once on his article page you see the amount of goals scored and you wonder where he was in the top goalscorers rankings for that season. Was he the club top goalscorer? Was he among the top 10 of the goalscorers in that league during the season? This way these questions are answered. If these are not available you should know each and every team mate in a certain year, browse to all of their separate player pages to find out the same results that can be found in these lists in one simple view. Yes it's the same information, but it's there in a different form, just like many other facts described on Wikipedia. As for the sizes, yes you're right, Wikipedia is growing and will always keep on growing as long as it will exist. You can't stop that and that should not be stopped as that would prevent us creating an encyclopedia that is as complete as possible. It will never be complete, but if we are leaving out notible information it might get lost and no one will ever be able to find this information again. The grow of Wikipedia should not be an argument to delete these documents. SportsAddicted | discuss  00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a news-reporting data dump. Only fans would remotely be interseted in this extemely high level of detail. In answer to everyone above who is jumping up and down and exclaiming that we should make this wiki as informative as possible, I MUST point out that this website is NOT free and requires extensize physical hardware which cost money to operate. So, please, before you vote to keep this useless drivel, look at the green bar at the top of the page. MiracleMat 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The size of these articles is minimal. They are not incredibly heavy articles that can disrupt servers or anything like that. They don't include pictures or vast amounts of characters. Space is not an issue.201.240.63.98 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Keeping these pages is rediculous, if people have decided we must delete results from the Bundesliga and the NBA, what makes these goals notable? These articles have been created out of sight by a few people without the rest of the Wiki community knowing, get rid of em. 88.107.250.220 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - but merge them into a 'results' or 'scorers' page. It's not non-notable information. Commentators of football frequently reference to such information, which it may be pointed out is most definitely fact and usable. As per arguments above regarding to size, yes, too much, cut it into one page and reduce the amount of info. But don't just get rid of it all for such an argument. Whilding87 12:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This kind of information is very useful to some people, its not useless drivel (just look at the new pages to see the usual pathetic nonsense that gets added to wikipedia). This is information that is factually correct, kept uptodate and is often unavailable without subscription. As for the "delete it to save space argument" I think there are plenty of vanity pages, made up rubbish and irrelevant nonsense articles on wikipedia to get rid of before we start removing verifiable information for the sake of space. By all means merge the articles, but to erase them completely, would be removing information just for the sake of it.King of the North East 13:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are many other lists like this in Wikipedia (of other unrelated topics). Why not delete those too? I guess it is unnecessary to have a list of countries by GDP nominal, GDP by PPPm etc. 201.240.63.98 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel another list shouldn't be on Wikipedia, nominate it for deletion while citing proper reasons. The existence or non-existence of other articles isn't relevant to the existence of this one. 206.213.209.31 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep These are pages which should be left on wikipedia. Wikipedia is about arranging information for internet users in a readily accessable way.  This is the most in dept and accessable information on goalscorers in major leagues on the net.  Destroying this information is doing internet users a diservice.  Wikipedia needs more detail, not less. Niall123 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be a lot of discussion on how valuable the information is to a certain group of people... but that has never been a sole qualification for what gets kept and what gets removed. Plenty of things are useful to certain people that aren't notable or go beyond the scope of detail necessary. The usefulness of the information is not relevant, as far as I can tell. It's not one of the criteria that the deletion process is designed to consider. 206.213.209.31 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To elaborate further: The Yellow Pages contains useful information. It doesn't mean such information should be included in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a poor reference considering that the Yellow Pages is essentially an advertising device, which Wikipedia is not. Niall123 17:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's useful, which is one of the primary arguments being presented in support of the article. Yellow Pages information would clearly violate other standards for Wikipedia, so the usefulness wouldn't be justifiable. I would be interested in hearing more reasons for why the lists need to stay that don't relate to usefulness. 206.213.251.31 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So far we have heard reasons why it should be deleted. But we have heard no really reasons why it should be deleted.  We have heard that it is too much detail.  But why is too much detail a bad thing for wikipedia ? Niall123 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the sentiment is that it falls under the idea that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The rebuttal to this has been that the information is useful. Such a rebuttal is invalid. The justification for this reason to delete is up for debate, which is why I have not personally made a decision; I'm waiting to hear more arguments. 206.213.251.31 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't tell under which point in your above link does this type of information fall. I also can't understand why the above information can be described as "Indecriminate".  Niall123 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My logic behind saying 'this information, whilst useful, is not valid for Wikipedia' has two fundamental underpinnings:
 * The 'indiscriminate information' means that we don't just include everything factual. We are instead, in the business of recording knowledge. A list of countries by their GDP is knowledge because it informs us as to the relative macro-economic performances of countries, and is a statistic used by a number of institutions when formulating policy. A list of FA Cup winners is knowledge because it shows the victors of an important competition through the ages and the changes that have occured in English football. A list of the top scorers in a season in English football is knowledge, for similar reasons. However, a list of every goal in the Premiership/SerieA/La Liga (never mind the Libyan Prem and Dutch Second Division) is not knolwedge; it is trivia, it is statistics, it may be other things, but its not 'knowledge'. Indiscriminate refers to the fact that we are not discriminating between knowledge and other facts
 * As noted before, the scope for these articles to grow is quite frightening. We're basically justifying the creation of simialar articles for every season of football throughout in history in any top or second level league. THAT is a lot of info and that is the sort of stuff that should be in a football stats database, not an ecyclopedia. --Robdurbar 18:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course these pages are knowledge and the information is not only useful but also notible for the leagues, the players and the clubs. It informs us about which player scored for which team in which year and where he was in the top goalscorers list among his team mates. Wahetever you make out of it that information is notible. It may not be of your interest, but something not being of your interest should not be a reason to delete it from an encyvlopedia. The lists could be merged into the articles describing the seasons if that would be better for the servers, but from what I have seen everywhere on Wikipedia is that we try to keep article pages as small as possible and we create subpages where possible, to prevent the original articles becoming too large. I agree with Robdurbar that this is information that should be available in a football stats database, but that does still not say this information should not be on Wikipedia. If you can provide me a website on the internet that has all this information available for all these leagues let me know. RSSSF has a lot of information available, they have all matches, sometimes even with goalscorers and line-ups available in any league, but does not give us the information described in the way they are described in these lists. SportsAddicted | discuss  00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep all. We should be encouraging editors who are prepared to write football articles and not discouraging them. We are not short of server space (and if we are the ever increasing barometer at the top of this page will buy lots more!) so the arguments over length, precedent etc don't hold water. These articles comply with all WP policies and as stated above are of both interest and use to some people. BlueValour 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per mjefm above. Neier 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: if WP isn't here to be a useful internet source of information, what is it here for? It's own sake? Articles such as this have merit, are useful, concert a noteworthy subject (there are far more obscure subjects on WP that professional football, for goodness sake).  Besides, the WP is not an Almanac 'rule' was only recently dreamt up and has subsequently been removed.  An encyclopaedia is simply a collation of information.  If some of it is in list form, hooray. Mjefm 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all since it is information not just per season but also for every team. I think such a competition, that information is usefull. If we merge it, the article wil be in big kilobites and that will be bad for reader. KRBN 13:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some limited information on top scorers should be merged into the articles on the seasons, top 5 or 10 players maybe, such as those in previous FA Premier League season pages e.g. FA Premier League 1996-97. QmunkE 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wonder how many other events that occcur around 1000 times a year are also recorded on Wikipedia? --Robdurbar 10:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deaths in 2006 is one rather obvious example. Neier 12:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep all per BlueValour . These are informative articles and I know of numerous people that use them for research. Bababoum 14:10, 2 January 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.