Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese Premier League 1996–97


 * 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   redirect to Lebanese Premier League. Though different guidelines have been cited for why these articles should be deleted or redirected, the principle behind the comments is essentially the same - that the information contained within the articles does not in most cases exceed what is found in the parent article. The intention of the creator was reasonable, and appropriate and guideline compliant articles may be created at some point in the future; it is just that at the moment there is not enough material to make it worthwhile. See Summary style for discussion on when it is appropriate to split out a sub-article from a parent.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lebanese Premier League 1996–97

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This nomination includes 37 articles in full. The list is below. There is a relevant discussion at ANI here.

In total this user created about 396 articles. I'm only nominating this set of 37, all of the same type for now. If appropriate, the rest can be dealt with in turn.

As for the pages, they have no prose. They consist of "Statistics of Lebanese Premier League." They have a corresponding template and a "reference" which is an external link to the championship listings. They are a classic example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and also WP:NOT.

Perhaps if they were integrated together they would be useful, but as a massive set of articles they are not particularly useful. There's also no indication from the creator that they are going to improve these articles. The bot spam indicates a lot of unreferenced BLP notes, and they have yet to respond on their talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the full list: Lebanese Premier League 1996–97, Lebanese Premier League 1995–96, Lebanese Premier League 1994–95, Lebanese Premier League 1993–94, Lebanese Premier League 1992–93, Lebanese Premier League 1987–88, Lebanese Premier League 1991–92, Lebanese Premier League 1990–91, Lebanese Premier League 1989–90, Lebanese Premier League 1974–75, Lebanese Premier League 1972–73, Lebanese Premier League 1969–70, Lebanese Premier League 1968–69, Lebanese Premier League 1966–67, Lebanese Premier League 1964–65, Lebanese Premier League 1962–63, Lebanese Premier League 1960–61, Lebanese Premier League 1956–57, Lebanese Premier League 1955–56, Lebanese Premier League 1954–55, Lebanese Premier League 1953–54, Lebanese Premier League 1950–51, Lebanese Premier League 1948–49, Lebanese Premier League 1947–48, Lebanese Premier League 1946–47, Lebanese Premier League 1945–46, Lebanese Premier League 1944–45, Lebanese Premier League 1943–44, Lebanese Premier League 1942–43, Lebanese Premier League 1941–42, Lebanese Premier League 1940–41, Lebanese Premier League 1938–39, Lebanese Premier League 1937–38, Lebanese Premier League 1936–37, Lebanese Premier League 1935–36, Lebanese Premier League 1934–35, Lebanese Premier League 1933–34.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was having a conversation with another user a few days ago about the state of the Cambodian League season articles, which are exactly the same as these and I was also considering putting them up for deletion. -- Big  Dom  08:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a question of curiosity, were those created by the same user (or this user)? The creator of this set of articles did the ~400 articles all in one stretch (they're still unpatrolled in the patrol log), but I know they did others in the past. Shadowjams (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This problem could be a LOT worse than we imagined; it appears that this user has created almost 4000 league season articles, many of them with very little context or content. --  Big  Dom  12:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a profesional competition. No reason for coverage of individual years per WP:CONTENTFORK. A list article could deal with all of these events and redirects are completely unecessary. E.g. who is going to miss Lebanese Premier League 1936–37. Obviously Lebanese Premier League would remain. Best interests of wikipedia to have concentrated detailled and referenced coverage. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I confess that I did not look at every single article on this list, but of the ones I checked, there was no information that was not otherwise in the  Lebanese Premier League main article.  If they all have the same source, why could not they all be covered in one article?  How do we establish the notability of Lebanese Premier League 1937–38 separate from Lebanese Premier League? Separate articles do not presently provide added value to the user. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all, with option for speedy of rest on precedent. Seems to be nothing more than lists of statistics - that is not what we're for. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all, BUT... First of all, the articles created by User:Nameless User should be deleted because they do not have any meaningful content and further do not satisfy any of the de facto guidelines of WP:FOOTY task force WP:SEASONS. This would probably make them eligible for speedy deletion under "No meaningful content" as well. However, I strongly oppose that WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOT are brought up as arguments, because this would basically mean that articles such as 2009–10 Premier League and, ultimately, everything under the auspices of said task force would have no right whatsoever to exist, as well as countless MLB, NFL, NASCAR or whatever sports seasons. Do you really want to delete those as well? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - The difference between 2009–10 Premier League and this article (and others like it) is that the Premier League article is a real article. It has a full lead, sections and descriptions, pictures, etc. Within three days of its creation it had all of those features. Even early on there were indications that this would happen. I agree, we have to be careful about Not Stats, but if those specific stats articles are only stats, and not valid forks, they ought to have a look at them. I don't believe there are many examples of the articles you talk about with those problems. Shadowjams (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep League tables by season for national leagues are surely notable, and as soccer-holic mentions above, there are numerous examples already of these in Wikipedia. Shadowjams responds by saying that they are not proper articles without a lead, but if so they can be improved and thus are not suitable candidates for deletion. I would be happy to assist in improving the articles - will other respondents here help? Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping  11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I came across over 1000 articles on new page patrol that were all about two weeks old and not fleshed out in the least. These are not apparently national teams, they were mostly on other obscure leagues in assorted cities, mostly across Asia, but other places as well.  I question if any of these are notable at all, but even if they are, rather than thousands of separate articles, these could be merged into single articles for each community, with all years combined.   Montanabw (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "I question if any of these are notable at all" - your analysis makes it sound like these are no-mark sandlot leagues, which is not the case at all, the articles under discussion relate to the equivalent of the NFL or MLB in their country. The league is certainly very notable.  The question of whether articles with so little content should be kept is a different matter..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - at the moment, the articles have just standings, but there is nothing preventing further expansion. This is an acceptable starting point.  And yes, it's important to remember that this is the top division in a country.  The issue is that the articles lack prose at this point, which doesn't seem like a good enough reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Racing won the championship."
 * Keep all I see no reason for this to be treated differently than summaries of the seasons of any other sports league. So long as it refers to a reliable source-- and the RSSSF archive site is a source for a lot of our soccer data-- then it should be kept.  Sports articles have a lower threshold to clear on Wikipedia.  In many cases, they start out with little more than a table, as was the case of the articles on the individual National Football League seasons (for example, ), and they grow from there.  I think that it is cause for concern if we see 396 or 1,000 articles being created in a two week period, and that we do need to delete those that fall in the category of "obscure leagues in assorted cities" (described above), and.  In the case of the Lebanese Premier League, it's the highest level sports league in the nation of Lebanon, so I can't count that as obscure.   Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford, who pretty much sums up my position. I don't know about the other articles from this user, but the league in Lebanon is sufficiently notable to justify these articles. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect you to look at all of the articles, but for example take a look at this one. "Statistics of Lebanese Premier League in the 1955/1956 season.

And that's it. Does this meet even the supposedly lower threshold of sports articles? I also think the notion that a specific segment of articles has a lower threshold for some unspoken reason is simply wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that the nomination was for all the articles, regardless of whether they had content or not. It's questionable whether anyone will ever find information for the seasons prior to 1991, beyond what would be included in a single list of year-by-year champions.  However, the entire nomination was based on deleting all the articles as a matter of policy, regardless of content.   From an encyclopedic standpoint, I would agree that the double standard for Wikipedia articles probably is simply wrong, but it's no secret that entertainment (sports, TV, film) gets treated differently than academics (science, history, politics).  Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep with time and work done, this article can be brought to standards. Str8cash (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nota bene: --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem realistic or likely. This set only includes 37, but the full extent of these types of articles is at least 400, maybe closer to 1,000 when you consider the above. That's a remarkable number of articles that have little to no real content. That's exactly the meaning of WP:DIRECTORY. Shadowjams (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CONTENTFORK. Individual articles are not needed, as the main article, Lebanese Premier League, already contains all that is in these separate stubs. Consider redirecting the said pages to the main one. The same goes for the other 300+ articles; merge any (probably not much) content into the main article and redirect or delete. Airplaneman  talk 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The league page you reference does not have all the information contained in the pages requested for deletion; it only lists the league winners, and does not have the tables for each year. Eldumpo (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Consolidate per Airplaneman . No need for unnecessary duplication.   --Bejnar (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2010 (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.