Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football World Cup 2002 (squads)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Carried out by user:Dale Arnett

Football World Cup 2002 (squads)

 * Delete Football Statistics do not belong to an encyclopedia Faethon 08:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, organized lists of notable people are kinda useful. Kappa 12:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedia etymology is "complete-round education". What kind of education does this football statistics offers to you? Faethon 12:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would tend to go by dictionary definition rather than etymology; in any case wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopedia so its nature is not set in stone. Kappa 16:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to go read Encyclopedia first. Then read What Wikipedia is not, where it is clearly written in the first line that wikipedia IS an encyclopedia. Can you point to a single online or paper Encyclopedia worldwide that has football squads inside?Faethon 06:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Reading Encyclopedia I find that Everything2 is an encyclopedia. A quick search of Everything2 reveals various world cup squads. Kappa 07:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything2 is NOT an encyclopedia. It is written there that "Everything2 started as an encyclopedia, but it changed and become an online community". Everything2 is what its name says, its everything. Wikipedia is primarly supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an everything2 online community. Thats why football squads and any similar not instructive or not educative articles have to be rejected. Faethon 11:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if you want to apply the rules from a traditional encyclopedia to this, see the first line of the Encyclopedia article: An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia) is a written compendium of knowledge. Which is what this article is. But wikipedia is NOT a traditional encylcopedia; in fact, there are various sports encyclopedias out there, just search Amazon.com for "sports encyclopedia" or amazon.co.uk for "football encyclopedia". I don't know why this needs to be argued any further, since this is clearly one person's quest to bring down this article. --Dryazan 14:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, its not that I dont like football. I just think football squads are not encyclopedic. I think that if you are going to create articles for all football squads from 1930 until today, the admins are going to delete all of them. Do you want to try it? If your articles will survive, then I will create european football cup squads, because I am a european football fun. Faethon2 22:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No they won't. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Philip 02:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Like these, you mean? Go for it. sjorford// 00:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah! like this! Thanks for creating it. well...its not encyclopeadic, but who cares? Wikipedia seems to be a community and NOT an encyclopedia. I think I like it that way too. Faethon11 07:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, they do belong. Keep. sjorford// 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well organised list for one of the world's largest sporting events (possibly second only to the Olympics in viewers), and easily as notable as any episode guide for a TV series. Average Earthman 12:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This does not mean that it is encyclopaedic, unless of course you change encyclopaedia's meanning. Remember, encyclopaedia is a greek word used also by Jean Jacques Rousseau to describe something that surely was NOT football statistics. Faethon 13:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * By that logic a book isn't an encyclopedia because it's rectangular, rather than circular.Nateji77 14:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Jean Jacques Rousseau hasn't contributed anything useful to Wikipedia lately.--Centauri 01:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - rather tedious Brookie 12:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 12:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I just spent a number of hours compling this, and a number of people are helping. There is Football World Cup 1994 (squads), there are multiple numbers of squad pages for Euro 2004, and for Men's Football at the 2004 Summer Olympics (team squads). There are also detailed pages for most important football tournaments. I put this page up because I wanted one central place where all the rosters for the WC could be found. I've been contributing a lot to football (soccer) sections of Wikipedia lately, but if this gets deleted, this is gonna be one sad joke. Also, please note what User:jni wrote at User:Faethon's talk page:  Please do not put to some random articles, that is totally inappropriate. Read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and other relevant policy pages first! I have also fixed your Votes for Deletion submission. Thanks, jni 11:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)  --Dryazan 13:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about your hard work. It isnt that it is not a good work. I just think that your work has to be moved somewhere else, as long as it is not instructional or educative, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be educative. Can you point to a single instructional institute that teaches football squads? Faethon 07:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Staffordshire University, with the so-called "David Beckham Studies" degree (a cultural studies degree with emphasis on media and football culture). The Brandenton Acadmey is also an instructional institute.Nateji77 09:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didnt know that. IMHO those odd studies are not notable. Especially "David Beckam studies" seems to me like advertisement. Even if we accept that these are real studies, I still believe that no student there is forced to learn football squads. Can you point to a lesson named "football squads" or something like that in those academies? And how long shall we keep football squads in wikipedia? Shall we write all squads from 1901 until now? I think an encyclopedia with football squads does not make sense.Faethon 11:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * University of Florida 22 March. Lecture: World Cup History Assignment: 4 v 4.Nateji77 14:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not 1901, but 1930, when the first World Cup took place. I wonder what students are forced (FORCED??? -- it's interesting how this champion of education calls it forced) to learn Pokemon characters or Seinfeld episodes? --Dryazan 14:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you'd bothered to look it up you'd know that "David Beckham Studies" was a sensationalist nickname the British press contrived to sell broadsheets, not the official name of the degree.


 * I'm also not sure where you get the idea that encyclopediae are equivalent to textbooks and only supposed to include information that will be taught in schools, since that seems to be your yardstick of relevance. I don't see a lot of high school freshman memorizing the List of geological features on Triton, but that is something that belongs in wikipedia. Students might not use the list for class (they also might; it would be very relevant to an undergraduate sociology paper on say, German-Dutch or Anglo-Argentine fan animosity), but fans and sports journalists can use it as reference.Nateji77 14:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lists and tables are helpful. Given that Faethon also slapped to What Wikipedia is not and to few other odd places, I must question his judgement about what should be included/deleted, and I have a hard time taking this nomination seriously. jni 15:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samaritan 15:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; I think it's VERY appropriate to have squad lists for truly major competitions such as the World Cup, European Championships, and the like. Dale Arnett 17:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful, of course. bbx 22:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, I agree. KEEP, OBVIOUSLY.  GRider\talk 22:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bogus VFD.--Centauri 01:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't even like soccer (football) and I say keep. It's just as valid as if someone posted full rosters of the Super Bowl teams of American football. --Woohookitty 01:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a ridiculous snobbish nomination. Philip 02:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Sports statistics do belong. There's professional companies like Elias, but it's just as relevant to wikipedia.Nateji77 09:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Summarizes a great deal of information, and ties together links on a lot of existing player articles.  Certainly seems to do no harm, and the World Cup is a big event.  This isn't a list of high school football players.  --TenOfAllTrades 16:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A decent resource of note. Qwghlm 16:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I do wonder why you didn't use an external link to FIFA or something (OTOH, the player hyperlinks are rather nice). Junes 00:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the point of this was to group all the players together, as TenOfAllTrades said above. --Dryazan 03:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. And I hate football. James F. (talk) 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of the advantages of Wikipedia over conventional encyclopedias. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 01:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As informative and useful as any other article we have. And I'm not a football fan either. -- Necrothesp 04:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.