Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup calendar II

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 of the debate was speedy delete, with discussion over the format to continue at 2006 FIFA World Cup schedule. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup calendar II

Redundant copy of 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar. (Not wanting to cause offense or anything, but in good faith I would hypothesise that the author was uncomfortable with the thought that I came up with a better, more readable layout for the page, so he re-created his old layout in a new page.) — Timwi 10:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. I am the author of the original calendar, but did not create the duplicate page. In my opinion both versions are of equal merit: the 'schedule' looks prettier, but the 'calendar' is easier to read at a glance. I agree that we don't need two versions of the same information, so I would suggest that we take a vote over which format is preferred at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup schedule#Calendar or Schedule and just keep the winner. Dan1980 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar layout is much more readable. -- Chuq 11:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant duplicatec Ydam 12:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timwi, get off your high horse. 1) I did not originally make the calendar. 2) It's a calendar. Your layout is hardly more readable. Having it listed as a long list makes it harder to figure out what games are on what day and what times they're at. I think people should have a choice as to the format of the calendar. I guess this is in conflict with wikipedia's policy on "duplicate" pages so it will probably be deleted. Dav2008 13:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is disagreement on the layout and content ot should take place at the article 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar and its talk page. There is no need for a completely seperate article Ydam 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burninate one or the other, no preference. BoojiBoy 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One layout is quite enough, per Ydam. Sam Vimes 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either one Wikipedia is not sports portal to present info in various forms. It's just data and nothing else. May be poll should be conducted to choose better variant. --Monk 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close early??? may I suggest we close this one early, and continue the discussion on which lay-out to use on the talk-page. --Eivind^t^@^c 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection, but I don't think I should do that seeing as I was the nominator. — Timwi 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless a strong argument against this arises within the next 24 hours, I will close this one early as a speedy delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See other users comments. SteveGOLD 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, current form at 2006 FIFA World Cup schedule is much more readable. This "calendar" format has little encyclopaedic value in the future -- will users read this format two or three years in the future? My guess is probably not. See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. They will prefer to look at a chronological list, IMHO. If further debate ensues, enlist a straw poll (but in my opinion, it won't go to that). Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have already started a straw poll on Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup schedule, feel free to comment on which lay-out to use there. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with IanManka above. Calendar formats, though handy for current events, are not best for historical documentation. -- MrDolomite 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.