Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports calendar November 2006


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sports calendar November 2006

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Redundant to November 2006 in sports WOSlinker (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reason to have multiple articles on the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this one Good Lord, a 143 KB article on "November 2006 in sports"? And this 16KB one is supposed to be inferior to that?  Even by the lower standards set for sports articles, the one not nominated is excessive.  Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia." Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I think that many scholars would agree with that sentiment, I think the quote might be "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge This article is not as thorough and can easily be merged and redirected.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 99 percent of the articles on Wikipedia aren't as thorough as one that needs 143KB to tell its story. I'd rather keep this one as a model of how a Wikipedia article should be written.  We can still leave the other one with a disclaimer of some sort.  Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as the creation entirely novel list topics contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.
 * I hate to keep doing the "Brand X" thing, but this article at least makes an attempt to source its content, while the other one doesn't even bother. When putting together a page from multiple sources, whether it's about World War II or an article about events as recent as 2006 in (film, music, baseball, birding and ornithology, etc.), it's essential to provide a link to a reliable and verifiable source for each statement made.   Mandsford (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  09:49, 28 April 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.