Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 NSW Premier League results

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 deleted by forwardslash backslash citing this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NSW Premier League results[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive detail for the results of a domestic football season, thus a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Content is sufficiently avaiable at 2009 NSW Premier League season. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content is already covered in an existing article, no reason for a seperate one. Giant Snowman 11:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't warrant a separate article Spiderone 12:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This information doesnt need a seperate article. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 numbers showing a result does not cover as being sufficient, when detailed results are. SuperSam,, (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is overkill. – Pee Jay 10:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - excessive detail -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the Sky Sports Football Yearbook. Has I've said before. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well-sourced and useful, and info is not already covered elsewhere in the same detail. Eldumpo (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Indiscriminate collection of data, not presented in a particularly useful way. WFCforLife (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - clearly an example of WP:NOT#IINFO, especially as this is only a semi-professional league. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relevant content is already covered. --Jimbo^[online] 01:17, 26 October 2009 (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.