Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSU Tigers football supplemental information


 * 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 transwiki to Wikisource. - Krakatoa  Katie  08:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LSU Tigers football supplemental information

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails to comply withWP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including statistics.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest a relist to generate more thorough consensus.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 02:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Preface--I'm the one who created the article.  The reason I created it was to make the main article, LSU Tigers football, consist of mostly prose, like the similar article Oklahoma Sooners football.  The information is not indiscriminate and it is encyclopedic when combined with the information in LSU Tigers football.  A side note here, in conjunction with this article, I also plan on writing more text in the LSU Tigers football article.  The LSU Tigers football article previously contained most of the information in the LSU Tigers football supplemental information article, which made the main article very long and look quite messy.  So basically, this article is not really just a random compilation of stats and figures, but rather a companion to a (soon to be) thorough history of LSU Tigers football. Seancp 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource per "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic" in WP:NOT Corpx 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back the important stuff in a more concise way. There are articles which are simply collections of miscellaneous information, and this is a prime example, starting from the title. If it is necessary to divide an article, it should be divided by topic, by historical period, or by some logical and self-evident way. Not main and supplementary. Seancp, I urge you to withdraw this article and do it differently.DGG (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource, though it needs references and citations as there are none. The information could be incorporated when by-era (by-coach) pages are created as well to keep it here on Wikipedia if desired. A lot of the tables have "blank" data which needlessly makes the page larger than it needs to be as well. MECU ≈ talk 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into main article.--Bedivere 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Harlowraman 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Transwiki per Corpx and WP:NOT. It'd be great to preserve a cleaned up version of the information in wikisouce. -- B figura (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this the type of thing that Wikisource wants? I thought they wanted published books that had fallen into the PD, not original works. -- B  04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Poorly named. If you want to split an article off a main article, find a meaningful subtopic. --Coppertwig 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Delete''' do not keep, Wikipedia is not a sports alamac Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does the policy say that?  J- stan  Talk Contribs 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's my saying of indiscriminate collection of information part in WP:NOT for sports articles that only consists of info like stats :p. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see: It violates WP:NOT.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I imagining things or didn't we have a "tables" namespace for a brief time? That would be the perfect place for something like this - the appendix of the encyclopedia. - B  04:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or maybe an "Appendix" namespace.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Shapeless information that is not interesting to read. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If Oklahoma Sooners football could fit everything important into the main article, why can't this one? Don't be afraid of leaving out the less important information. You can let people find that kind of stuff on the web. EdJohnston 04:02, 3 September 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.