Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07


 * 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 keep. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a directory or dictonary. The page is fancruft also. Davnel03 17:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion:

There's lots more than just these, so expect me to add some more.


 * Strong keep - per Articles for deletion/Rangers F.C. season 2005-06. Nom doesn't make sense - this is not the type of info that would be found in a directory or dictionary. There is a strong precident for sports team-by-season articles, there are even six of them listed on WP:GA. See also Category:National Basketball Association seasons by team, Category:Sports history of the United States by team and all of their sub-categories. I don't think that there is any difference in notability between an American football team's season and a soccer team's season, as long as they play in a professional league. WP:5 states Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of [...] almanacs., and as I've said in previous AfDs, this this very much the type of thing that would be found in an almanac. These articles are also completely and easily verifiable. Gasheadsteve 18:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with Gasheadsteve. I don't see which of the four parts of Wikipedia is not a directory these articles fall into. I think this type of article would appear in a sports almanac or yearbook, and therefore should be included under "Wikipedia is not..." rule number 1, paper. Gentgeen 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close This needs to be argued at the portal level, not here. Every sports team has a season article. See Category:2007 in sports for the thousands of articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - comparing these pages to a dictionary or fancruft as in the nomination is simply incorrect.  WATP   (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - About the reasons for deletion: this article is not even close to a dictionary entry; this article is not a directory entry, please read carefully the 4 types of directory entries. Reason for keep: this article is a sport almanac entry, what is part of Wikipedia.--ClaudioMB 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, verifiable, sourceable, notable content. I dislike some of them, especially those ones composed just by the squad and the list of results for that season, but deleting them all is a wrong idea. --Angelo 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Gasheadsteve. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: as for reasons for the rest of the posters. They're certainly not fancruft. My only objection is the West Ham United F.C. ones, which are lacking in quality and need improving. The rest are proper Sport almanac entries. Da-rb 22:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all Valuable reference material of very wide interest. Abberley2 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all per Angelo. I dislike some of these articles too. In fact, I tried to get a fair few of them deleted a while back. However, I believe they can be of use if done well, i.e. composed of a prose account of the season, not just a bunch of statistics, as I am attempting to do with Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07, albeit slowly. - PeeJay 01:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per several of the arguments notably Angelo, ClaudioMB and Richard Arthur Norton.JForget 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All per several arguments such as Angelo and Gasheadsteve. They all contain useful material, even though some need improvement. - Boy1jhn 12:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Close if you want to deal with whether or not sports teams should have their individual seasons in an article, I suggest a policy-level discussion over an article level one. I also recommended articulating your position in a more effective manner than simply saying Wikipedia is not something or another or using the term cruft.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did discuss at a lower level. Davnel03 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you should go to a higher-level, such as the Village pump. Or an RFC.  The discussion there involved what looks about 5 people.   Since this is a subject that'll extend through hundreds of potential pages from Baseball to well, a lot of others.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I never knew there were pages like this for baaseball and other sports. Davnel03 08:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing, even if there weren't pages (and some sports and teams are more developed than others), this is logically an issue that applies to all of them, thus I believe it would have been appropriate for you to look for them and see what's going on. Now if your issue were with the team itself (I nominated a season article for a college sports team a few months ago), that'd be particular, but it seems to me your argument was more general in nature.  Thus my suggestion to bring this up in a wider forum. FrozenPurpleCube 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm in favor of just deleting the Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07 and Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08 articles. Why? Because the Manchester United 1999-present article has a season by season analysis. I'm not sure about the others. --Tocino 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure that's a good way to go about things, as there's no way to uniformly standardize articles if done that way. It might be better to move some of the content from that article into year-by-year coverage of the Manchester United.  Otherwise we might have arguments over appropriate breaks for history of sports teams. At the least though, since some of the content isn't duplicative, I'd at least say merge.   FrozenPurpleCube 01:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong KeepWikiGull 08:15, 14 August 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.