Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International sports calendar 2012


 * 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   merge to 2012 in sports .  MBisanz  talk 11:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

International sports calendar 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOT. This is a list that has no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, no possibility of ever being comprehensive enough to be useful, and lacking any meaningful structure to make it useful for readers. Kevin McE (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * delete The article seems to be stating that this is a real thing, but there isn't any attempt to show that it is so. It may be a list of international sporting events that Indian athletes competed in. Anyway it's hard for me to see a justification for this article; it isn't what the title says it should be.
 * OK, then, if it's a list of every professional sports event in 2012, then it seems to me that once the American events get added, they will simply swamp it, with half a dozen baseball games a day during the summer and so forth. It may not be literally indiscriminate, but the difference is not meaningful. And exactly how is this going to be sourced? Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Its NOT for every event/games. Its the proffessional league as a whole, so only the winner at the end gets listed. (the respective interwikilink will deal with the season in detail.) its more quick rference.Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation: it is not clear from either the title or the text. And what about sports that are not run as a league? Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * we already have 2012 in sports but it's an unlikely redirect.  Morwen - Talk 15:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What "real" thing? its a list. And it has nothing to do with "indian athletes competing in" (theres a nother article about sports in india by year, which is horrid) For the rescord the criteria is clearly mentioned in the lead if it is written. it is a list of proffessional sports by calendar. Which was motivated by the electoral calendar (and the death calendar and the terrorist incidents calendar (which is far more dubious in its inclusion and far less likely to be complete)). The article IS being expanded and updated (see the recent history). Its utility is to organise a list of events to be viewable throughout the sportsworld (instead of sports specific) and its more comprehensive than the year in sports. it needs organisation (As i asked on the talk page) but improvement is not a reason for deletion. Further the other page is vry poorly updated and a redirect is plausible. strong keep
 * Importantly, it offers a different organisation to the other page that exists. That is by sports, this is by month. I dont want to use OSE, but for context its akin to the various different organisation of list of global leaders by...Therein lies its utility for readers who want to see it by time of year not by sport. Improvement through discussion is already wasked for and can be workedon
 * Further the nominatior seems to be baying for blood searching my contrib history because of a disopute elsewhere. Thats stalkingLihaas (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's leave out ad hominem arguments.
 * I don't see the relevance of electoral/death/terrorist incidents calendars to this discussion, nor where to find them; I see no evident parallel between this and lists of political leaders (and there are no articles entitled list of global leaders by; and without links, I have no idea what you mean by "the other page that exists". This is the AfD discussion of a particular article, that has virtually no links leading to it.
 * You claim that "the criteria is (sic) clearly mentioned in the lead if it is written." Frankly, I can only guess at what you mean by that, but if we ignore the last four words of it, which I don't think changes the meaning that you intended, it leaves us with a ridiculously loose criterion: "proffessional (sic) sports".  Is every League Two football match to be included?  Every athletics meet that includes professional athletes? All professional darts matches? Every professional cycling race, including BMX, road racing, cyclocross, mountain biking, track racing, etc?  That certain events co-incide on the same weekend is of such incredibly marginal relevance that it is not plausible as an area of readers' research. The Women's Professional Billiards Association Tour Championship in Oregon happens in the same month as the Dubai rugby sevens: pointless. Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The intent was to include only the season dates, plus any finals such as the World Series. There was never any intent to post individual games, e.g. "August 13: Major League Baseball: 🇺🇸 San Diego Padres vs.  Atlanta Braves, Turner Field, Atlanta, Georgia". - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is this intention expressed? And if you believe that to be the case, why have you been posting results of specific motor races? Kevin McE (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 15:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I had looked at it: absolutely nothing there that looks like a clearly defined consensus or an agreement on inclusion criteria, and no mention of season dates at all. Kevin McE (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then instead of being trigger happy on the delete discussion, one could add a discussion to improve it. There was more of a consensus here than a move of the paralympic summary. Improvement is not a reason for deletion.Lihaas (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A useful calendar for international sporting events and domestic championships. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * merge with (to) 2012 in sports and redirect. They are just about the same, only with a different organizations (ny sport, by date) - Nabla (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point. To make it available through different criteria. Not to use OSE, but the smae is done in political articles. "by longevity""by tenure""by..."Lihaas (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into 2012 in sports and redirect per Nabla. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * support/keep IN ACCORdance with what i said earlierLihaas (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  03:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete both lists in both articles are a real dogs breakfast. They have individual competitions within competitions, a variety of formats, a list of winners for some but not for others - aarrghh. On top of that is a hundred or so missing sports. A major point against this kind of list is that the whole concept is likely to become to unweildy to manage - do you know how many different sports with significant contests there are out there? NealeFamily (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. improvement is not a reason for deletion, we can discuss improvement on the talk page
 * 2. its also explicitly said this is for professional sports, you clearly havent read the page then
 * 3. there are no winners for some because (obviously) the event is ongoing. Ive suggested putting it into a table and your welcome to suggest/add to that on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. But in the 20 days this has been proposed for deletion, yet alone the preceding weeks that the article has been there, there has been no attempt to do so. Sometimes the implementation of poor (albeit perfectly well intentioned) ideas does not merit improvement, such as when the concept is too unwieldy to manage.
 * 2. Please AGF.  One can easily read the page without ceasing to be aware that there are scores of other professional sports, possibly exceeding a hundred, and that there is a vast number of different sports with significant contests that are professional.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2012 (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.