Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swindon Town F.C. seasons


 * 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 Eluchil404 11:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Swindon Town F.C. seasons

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I believe that this page is not necessary. However, I also believe it may be useful to have some of the information moved to Swindon Town F.C.'s page. Such as greatest achievements, I do not believe it is useful to have a full list of every season for a minor professional team.  Asics   Talk 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - the table of season-by-season performances should be included on the main club page, replacing if necessary some of the other stuff on that page (e.g. historical kits?) - fchd 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep to prevent overwhelming the team's article page with the long table, and also per featured list Chicago Bears seasons -- Neier 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful information, well formatted, well referenced. WP:5 and WP:NOT also both apply.  Obviously way too big to fit in the main article.  Nominator offers no reason for deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 06:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful, well referenced information. Standard page for the more polished football team articles - see Arsenal F.C. and Sheffield Wednesday F.C.. HornetMike 10:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons given above. Many teams have this type of information on their main article (e.g. St. Blazey A.F.C.), and in my opinion it is stylistically better to remove it to it's own article. Gasheadsteve 10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per reasons given above. Would be good to have these pages as standard for all professional clubs. WikiGull 10:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A good work, and very useful, as per above. --Neigel von Teighen 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your points, but would it not be better just to have a smaller list of the major/semi-major achievements merged with the Swindon page. But I am not just listing the page here under WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you suggested.  I did think I had a valid point.  However, if you believe the full page is necessary then so be it. However, I still stick with delete and take the most useful information across to the Swindon page.  Hornet Mike and Neier see WP:INN and then perhaps rephrase your arguements.  I hope you can see the reason why I listed it, purely because I didn't think it was necessary.  Thanks   Asics   talk  18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT for reasons not to nominate the article. The list I pointed to above was not a simple WP:INN argument, but rather a point that the community in general approves of lists of this type, even to the extent of awarding "featured list" status to that one.  Lists of seasons may not be of interest to everyone, but, they are WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.  Neier 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Forgot to address the first point) Merging back to the Swindon page would create a long page (more than 50KB, which is above the point where the MoS recommends splitting articles). Listing a smaller more-notable list in the main article is acceptable, and should be done, but it is no reason to sacrifice thoroughness (WP:NOT) Neier 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:INN, I think that's irrelevant. Whilst I wouldn't see the point of every single minor team having a page like this, I don't see why Swindon shouldn't. After all, they're a football league club. 2 years ago they were in the same Division as Sheffield Wednesday. 10 - Arsenal. They're a big enough side to justify having a page like this. HornetMike 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Very informative - I'd hope every team will have a page like this sometime in the future. -- Mattythewhite 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Very nice piece of work, encyclopaedic, meets all WP policies. BlueValour 04:43, 24 January 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.