Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of results of the England national rugby league team


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

List of results of the England national rugby league team
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you call that information. Delete.  Ben Aveling 08:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  13:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, pending the development of separate articles for each game. Kappa 13:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a Rugby fan, but sports results aren't encyclopedaic. Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  14:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. GhostGirl 13:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. encephalon  16:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and please, please, please don't make articles for each individual game. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it would be better to have information about individual series such as Tri-Nations, English/Great Britain tours and I would certainly vote to keep such information. It would be of interest to many people in the UK, Australia and New Zealand and would definitely be encylopedic. The problem with this article is that the information is not in context but I would vote Keep until such articles are developed. It would be great if interested editors started work on such a project. Just because an article is not of interest to you doesn't mean it doesn't have encyclopedic potential. Capitalistroadster 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone were to write an encyclopedic overview of those series, I would vote keep every single time. This, however, is not encyclopedic; it's a raw collection of data, almost entirely without context and presenting little value to the development of articles about those series. The problem isn't that this isn't interesting (nevermind that it is by its nature of interest only to those interested in both the English national rugby team and statistics), the problem is that this is unencyclopedic. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a non-issue. Wikipedia is also an almanac. A very high priority is given to making that clear on Article. CalJW 13:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. How do you suggest this date be presented then? If its on the main England Team page, it make it too long and gets in the way. So I created an archive of all the results, so users can be reffered to them. Instead of nominating for it to be deleted, why don't you give me a better way to present the info?...
 * Take it to Wikibooks or Wikisource, that'd be my suggestion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an entirely legitimate almanac style entry (and I've never watched a game of rugby league in my life). Article states "A Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being lists, timelines, tables or charts)." This clearly meets that definition and is is certainly not "indiscriminate". CalJW 13:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Astonished this is even listed. It is verifiably factual and verifiably legitimate as per Wikipedia policy. Duh!!--Alicejenny 13:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is this supposed policy? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:V, presumably. [[Sam Korn ]] 00:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not a rugby fan but many people are and of course this is encyclopedic. Keresaspa 15:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm profoundly unswayed by arguments containing the word "duh". I suppose that WP:NOT should include "Wikipedia does not act as a database," because that is what this effectivly is: a flat file with data.  No information, or analysis, or history, or even links to pages that have those things.  Disk space is cheap, but not free, and this article's cost in terms of storage, maintenance and response time does not justify it's inclusion. -  brenneman (t) (c)  05:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the cost of keeping this article, it's all the other sports results that will arrive if we allow this one to stay. I'm currently losing a vote to delete a weapons system that no-one's ever heard about or cares about because "Wikipedia has lots of articles on weapons systems".    Regards, Ben Aveling 08:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Sports results are unencyclopedic, I think. Grackle 11:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see the point in expanding a bit in context - where the match was played, what it was played as part of, who scored tries and so forth - but that's hardly a reason for deleting now. Notable, verifiable, and NPOV Sam Vimes 21:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --JAranda &#124; watz sup 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Ben Aveling's point. Dottore So 10:07, 11 November 2005 (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.