Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League fixtures and results


 * 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. The consensus is clear, unfortunately, because this sets a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not, and should not become, a sports almanac. Mango juice talk 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking more carefully, there seems to be consensus to delete FA Premier League Results - August 2001, so for that article, the result was delete. Mango juice talk 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

FA Premier League fixtures and results
Nomination of all of the following:


 * FA Premier League Results - August 2001
 * FA Premier League results August 2006
 * FA Premier League results September 2006

The view of most correspondents at WikiProject Football is that while articles summarising seasons are OK, detailed month-by-month results of every fixture played are not. Therefore I propose deletion of all the above under WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Qwghlm 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See also: Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 for a similar discussion at the moment.


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is it that time to reopen Centralized discussion/Sports results? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 15:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:V. This is not "indiscriminate" - there's a clear limit (Premier League), the results were significant media events in their time, and the detail helps to write articles about players later on. Sam Vimes | Address me 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sam Vimes. Budgiekiller 16:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is clearly heading to a No consensus. Leave the existing results pages, avoid the fixtures pages (they're copyright liable) and move on to something more important.  Budgiekiller 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - Pal 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete everything per nom - Refer author(s) to webhosting. User:Yy-bo 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Season summaries are fine, monthly result articles are overkill and unnecessary. –NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per NeoChaosX and the same reasoning at the Bundesliga page mentioned above. - fchd 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Sam Vimes. Bigdottawa 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it's verifiable. Punkmorten 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Aug/Sep 2006; Delete Aug 2001. I have no objection to these. I don't see any point in just keeping 1 month in 2001 though. I don't buy the indiscriminate bit - there are clear parameters to these lists and they will prove a useful resource if they are kept going all season.. BlueValour 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per BlueValour. Forbsey 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. HornetMike 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sam Vines // Lowg  .talk. 01:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per BlueValour. --Jaysscholar 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per BlueValour. DJLean 19:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per BlueValour. Warpfactor 23:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tidy. It's disorganised and crufty (Wikipedia is not RSSSF), and the intermingled listing of red and yellow cards looks horrible, but this is useful information; and, as I understand it, ultimately intended as a useful aid to building season-by-season summaries. Once that's done, transfer it out to Wikibooks or something; in the meantime, it should stay. Kinitawowi 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is nothing wrong with the month by month thing. Kingjeff 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - This appears to be heading to no consensus, but it seems that almost everyone agrees that the random month from 2001 should go, right? It would help if everyone could be clear about this so it doesn't have to run through another AfD process. - Pal 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - but if someone starts to recreate it and does the whole season in that kind of detail, THEN it should have to be run through AfD again. Sam Vimes | Address me 13:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Extremely useful. King fish erswift  16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - *What does "no consensus" mean? The vote is 12-7 for keeping it. Jaysscholar 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Short version; AFD is not a vote. It's an attempt to build a consensus agreement as to what to do. Granted, that normally turns out to be a vote, but Wikipedia has long had a policy of trying to avoid votes of this form (to prevent ballot stuffing, mostly). If there is "no consensus" as to what to do, precedent usually suggests maintaining the status quo (i.e. keep, in this case). Kinitawowi 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been longer then the 5 days, What is the verdict? Jaysscholar 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a backlog - some September 1 AfDs have not been closed. I think the admins are struggling to cope. BlueValour 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per BlueValour. Bababoum 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until we have a consensus on what to do with sports results. Batmanand | Talk 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - What I was hoping to do with the Bundesliga articles was a table for the months and a table for cummulative totals for up to the end of the month. Which would make the articles more useful. Kingjeff 00:21, 12 September 2006 (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.