Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games of the 2010–11 Elitserien season


 * 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Games of the 2010–11 Elitserien season

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a list of stats. No references. Delete or merge to 2010–11 Elitserien season. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Sweden. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with the "no references" – every single game has been referenced, with a "Game reference" link by every match. Unfortunately, the pages have since been moved, but the information can easily be referenced by pointing to new match statistics site. /Julle (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Have added sourcing. /Julle (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per WP:GNG, "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. You've added a direct primary source. Additionally, there is nothing notable about the results of the games of this season. It's the season itself, that has any notion of notability. There is no "significant coverage" of the results of the games. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For notability purposes, it would of course be possible to go to dig up a news report, game by game, 204 times, and use those. Like this one from Sveriges Radio for the very first game, for example. But this is best understood as a section of 2010–11 Elitserien season, having been split for length reasons, and should be considered in that context, much like e.g. a long separate bibliography in a writer's biography. From the perspective of verifiability, the statistics page suffers from none of the reasons why we avoid primary sources: it's controlled by neither team creating a conflict of interest, so spending days to replace the sources with individual news articles seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic. /Julle (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hence why it should be deleted. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist as there are still comments being made to this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly meets WP:AOAL for navigation  // Timothy :: talk  21:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AOAL is not a guideline; it's a set of bullet points stating the advantages of using lists as opposed to categories or navboxes, so there's no merit to that argument. This list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If WP:AOAL is not a guideline, why does it state at the top of the page, This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline.  // Timothy :: talk  15:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally fails WP:LISTPURP since there is no navigation that is not already achieved with 2010–11 Elitserien season. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again a curious interpretation. Can you point out the passage that supports the above assertion?  // Timothy :: talk  15:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.