Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday Night Football series-by-series history


 * 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   delete. Consensus is that this fails WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Monday Night Football series-by-series history

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This clearly fails WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and original research. Kept in a AFD back in 2005 which standards were a massive joke back then. Delete Secret account 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Gah! "Indiscriminate collection of information" indeed. This is far more detail than is appropriate for a general encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I just looked over the old AfD (well, VfD), and it might as well just redirect to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly a non-notable intersection of a notable topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons already expressed, assuming nothing can be salvaged. &mdash;Al E.(talk) 19:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this is an "indiscriminate" list at all (see WP:DISCRIMINATE) as it is a list that clearly focuses on Monday Night Football games. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday Night Football: Series By Series History and find at least most of keep the reasons given there to be solid and sound (some are not, but they aren't reasons to delete either).  The article could use more editing and sources, but that's a content issue and not a deletion issue.  The article meets WP:LISTN quite easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just about every vote in that AFD is that it may be useful, encyclopedic and interesting which aren't reasons for keeping an article nowadays, and I'm not discussing a cleanup or a merge here for a content issue. Random listing of game by game scores isn't something that belongs here as it's original research and I can't see anything that can't be salvaged. Secret account 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 8 editors took the position of Keep: three said it was either "useful" or "more useful" and one said "interesting" -- but not every editor had those statements as their only reason to keep. Don't hold editors from 6-7 years ago to the standards that are set today--they might well have made additional arguments (and some indeed did).  Further, these are clearly not "random" listings and it's not original research.  It's specific, it's targeted, and it's verifable.  The definition of "rivalry" in sports is well-established, and according to the records in the NFL and for MNF, these games are considered "rivalries".--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And the rest said "Wikipedia is not paper", or Keep end the discussion now, not one keep commenter mentioned any policy (to be fair neither did several of the deletes). I was starting to edit Wikipedia during that time and I remembered people usually commented on "VFD" like what the name expect votes for deletion, and how they liked the article or not. Not everything that is "verifiable" is worth keeping as we need to follow guidelines and policies, but this is a concern. Almost all MNF football games isn't involving rivalries, and the league and television executives decides what games they put for that day. Anything involving rivalries should go on the main MNF page, not in a series by series history. WP:NOT is not just for random listings on a list (if that's the case INFO would have been removed a long time ago, we had this since 2006). WP:NOT#INFO is mainly used for topics that is just clearly unencyclopedic and violates other policies and this is as clear cut of an example, especially section 3 involving statistics. WP:DISCRIMINATE is an opinion essay and a bit misinterpreted as well. Secret account 05:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Ultra-crufty, but Wikipedia is not paper and this is a benefit to the project, not a detriment. We must keep in mind that Wikipedia is not only a serious encyclopedia, but a compendium of popular culture. This may not be suitable for the first purpose, but it falls well within the purview of the second... Carrite (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything that is policy based? Wikipedia can be a "compendium of popular culture" but whatever article that qualifies needs to meet the relevant policy or guideline. Secret account 04:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignore All Rules works for me. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the Article Rescue Squad motto to a T, "keep because we're a compendium of popular culture". Tarc (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I made that term up myself and I'm not in article rescue squad, so they're gonna have to pay me royalties if they're using it. But since you're giving me the facepalm, I'll give you a little essay by a South American academic and wikipedian: Deletionism is not and never was a "consensus", not even a majority opinion. It is the stupid and destructive ideology of a small minority, that prevailed by a combination of robot power and a broken "consensus" mechanism that, in any other context, would be called "ballot fraud". It is stupid, because its goal is to move Wikipedia backwards, towards obsolete standards of paper encyclopedias. It is destructive, because it has led to the loss of tens of thousands of good articles and good editors, and earned Wikipedia some very bad press — which, this time, was quite deserved. In conclusion, Wikipedia will soon change, in spite of all shrugs and so-whats. If it does not change course now, radically and quickly, it will just die in a few years. To save itself, Wikipedia must set as its top goal the recruiting and keeping of new bona-fide editors. That includes banning deletionism and any other unnecessary practice, rule or feature that may drive those editors away, no matter how dear it may be to its inventors and users. That includes, in particular [1] scrap the notability rule, [2] delete and ban all editorial article-side tags, and [3] stop the paranoia about unsourced BLPs. All the best (with a bit more hope) --Jorge Stolfi, 28 February 2010. I don't buy every word of that myself, but there's your thought for the day, Mr. Facepalm. Carrite (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him, but the sentiment is very A. Nobody-ish. Hopefully this person is banned or retired already, as their opinion in on unsourced BLPs is particularly naive and distasteful. Tarc (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - A Wikipedia page is poorly-suited for this kind of dense statistical trivia. Despite the iconic history of MNF, there is nothing particularly notable about specific head-to-head series tallies; at best, it is something for the tv hosts to mention at the end of a blowout game to kill time.  Straight-up WP:NOT and WP:NOT, and taking anything from a 2005-era  VfD and applying it here would be like looking at cave paintings for guidance when trying to figure out how to use Photoshop. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Monday Night Football and the teams are obviously notable; while a handful of these games and MNF "rivalries" may be notable, the vast majority are neither notable nor meritorious of being included in a stand-alone list article.  The article should be deleted per nom and WP:NOT and WP:NOT cited above.  However, the closing admin should consider userfying it for any editor who wants it, and who is willing to attempt to salvage elements for team and season articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 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.