Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2005 Little League World Series


 * 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   no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Results of the 2005 Little League World Series

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or indiscriminate collection of data. PROD contested. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Results of significant world-wide sports events are very often notable. The Little League World Series fits this criteria. It is not an indiscriminate collection of data. Furthermore, there is no rule (as far as I know), that says, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. On the contrary the results of sports events, written with appropriate sources, in an encyclopedic and NPOV tone, and following all the other guidelines of Wikipedia have an important place in Wikipedia.--Crunch (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I also cannot find the policy that says Wikipedia is not a sports almanac.  The 2.9.3 section that you reference in other posts has to do with an indiscriminate collection of statistics, and none of those concerns in that policy apply here - a) it's clean, and not difficult to understand for the average reader; b) the main article explains the 2005 LLWS with enough context to put this results article in context for the general reader; and c) as Crunch said, the LLWS is clearly a significant world-wide sporting event.  Bds69 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2005 Little League World Series. Giving this its own page is excessive, imho. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Muboshgu. I would have said "keep" otherwise.  Nole  lover  20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge... no opinion either way, for the most part, but the content is not sufficiently indiscriminate to warrant outright deletion. Note that such articles exist for all years since 2005; thus, clear consensus is important here. I personally feel that a merge could work, as long as it does not make the main LLWS article for each year unwieldy; in that case, it might eliminate some redundancy to have it all in one article. -- Kinu t /c  20:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Wouldn't merging make the main article excessively long? Tampabay721 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it would be too long. I fail to see how this is different than other sporting events - i.e. 2010 FIFA World Cup and 2010 FIBA World Championship that have a separate page for the boxscores that aren't on the main page. Bds69 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be. The main article is 9k, the article in question is 23k. Combining the two wouldn't be unreasonable. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True on the size, but I think it's a simple matter of easy readability, not just in this year, but in later years. For example the 2010 Little League World Series article is 14k, while the results article is 33k.  To be consistent, we would merge that article too, which would be at minimum a 45k article (pretty big for a Little League World Series, imo).  There seems to be a bit of a consensus right now that all the information is worth keeping; it definitely reads easier as two articles, particularly in the later years, so I don't see what the problem in having two pages is. Bds69 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "Wikipedia is not a sports almanac" And it says this.. where? Vodello (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A bit of a content fork, but the 2005 Little League World Series article would be an overlong mess with a straight merge. The two pages do need to have See Also links with one another though. Carrite (talk) 20:27, 29 August 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.