Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SLC Sport Results 2005


 * 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. You've got an unsigned comment at the bottom from an anon which I've discounted, and then reading the debate Kevin seems to agree that the information isn't all that valuable. Looks like a general consensus to delete to me. Hiding Talk 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

SLC Sport Results 2005
This article listing results from a sports season fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. alpha Chimp (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment you might want to look at St Laurence's College for the other two entries. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the information. While not necessarily academic, it does have value and could be useful to someone. I think the spirit of "indiscriminate collection of information" would be more applicable to "Aunt Millie's Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe" or "Billboards In SLC's Stadium", rather than a compilation of information that could feasibly be in a sports almanac. Perhaps it would be worth merging with other years in a single "SLC Sport Results YYYY - YYYY" entry? Kevin 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I really see absolutely no prescient value in Wikipedia serving as a repository for obscure and entirely irrelevant sports results. Let's be entirely clear about this. This is a college sports team. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, particularly for non-professional sports, whether we like it or not.  alpha Chimp (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I don't argue that you and I may not see any value in this, that doesn't mean that everybody concurs. Let's say that a player from that team becomes a professional, and someone has the inclination to research the player's background. Or perhaps that school will win a playoff of some sort, making the information relevant. I think suggesting that information that could be in a sports almanac defines Wikipedia as such by its inclusion, is a bit of a longshot. Kevin 20:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, not that a player becoming famous would make game-by-game logs of random teams notable. Resolute 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I am a very big fan of sports related topics on Wikipedia, including almanac type articles (ie: List of NHL seasons), however game-by-game logs is a bit much. Resolute 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It was useful to me and it should stay.
 * 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.