Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 FIFA World Cup schedule

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. It has been recommended that this article be moved to List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule[edit]

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

It is a total content fork to 2010 FIFA World Cup. Every date information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a separate article for schedule. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Delete the content from 2010 FIFA World Cup as it causes bloat in that article. That's what was argued when the content was duplicated to 2010 FIFA World Cup from 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Now the tournament is over, this article is effectively a List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches, and I cannot see how anyone would object to that as a proposed Wikipedia list article. As we do not generally consider lists as invalid/redundant content forks simply because their contents can be divined from careful reading of other articles (which in this specific example, would take hours), I see no valid reason for deletion here, just a need for clarification of the nature of the fork, by renaming it. There might have been a case if information like dates/kick off times/venues wasn't considered worthy of recording for posterity in the main article, but it clearly is. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above as being documentation of a noteworthy event. Another option could be turning this into a collapsible template, and including that into the main, but to link to this from the main article would better serve the purpose of giving the info.--AerobicFox (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a content fork. There is no information on this page that isn't adequately covered in 2010 FIFA World Cup. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless content fork. Article carries little substantial information. --Jimbo^[online] 11:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic list, like millions of others on Wikipedia. What substantial information are you expecting it to include exactly? And how would that make it less of a 'pointless' fork? MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's limited in it's information in what it can contain. There's no need for a seperate article just for the schedule. --Jimbo^[online] 19:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's as lmited as most ordinary lists on Wikipedia, and such lists don't tend to be of any use if they are crammed with terrabytes of data. This simply isn't a valid argument for deletion to me. And it's not a schedule any more - it's a list of results. If that's what is not needed on Wikipedia, I would have thought the argument would be NOT#STATS, not 'this can be found in another article' (although not as quickly). MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a content fork. Removing the information from the parent article as Walter Görlitz in order to keep this fork isn't a sensible suggestion. much better to keep it all in one place. Giant Snowman 14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete "as a content fork"? Where does that come from? Content forks are generally good things as they enable us to keep excessive detail out of head articles. That's the case here. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All details exist on the main article as well. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a content fork will enable us to remove that excessive detail from a 110kb article that shouldn't have such excessive detail and should have much more information about other matters. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're talking about removing essential information, the outcome of the matches, from the main article. While content forks in general do have a purpose, this one does not. Generally, a content fork is useful so that a portion of the subject of an article can be treated in more detail without bloating the main article. This article, however, does not provide any detail not already in the main article, and removing any of this articles content from the main article would undermine it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is it essential to list the results of all 64 matches in the main article for the tournament? I'll put it this way: if the fork was to be used properly, two really good things would happen. First, the size of the head article would be cut down, making it easier for editors, particularly those with slow connections, to access. Secondly, the article could become a proper article, with much more prose and significantly less statistics. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. However, each of the groups, the knockout stage, and the final already have articles of their own which adequately cover these matches. On the other hand, the articles on every major football event list the results of every game in the tournament in question. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but to me this is very indicative of a consensus that the results of every game should be included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per those above. The main article is too long as it is, and splitting out easy-to-source and discriminate content looks like the best way to solve the problem. I honestly can't see why every result needs to be detailed in the main article - while results are clearly important to the competition, listing them all seems like overkill. What we should consider is doing the same for other overly long tournament articles like the 2006 one. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sections which contain the schedule were already split from the article in 9 different articles (1-1 for every group and 1 for the knockout stage). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which shows that having the same information in more than one place is not a reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The schedule of that event seems notable - it has been covered in reliable sources. We're not short on disk space. Of course, it could be improved - or indeed done in other ways (template, whatever) - but I simply see no harm in referenced notable info on the project. I don't think the topic fails WP:NOTDIR, because of the coverage elsewhere. I agree forks can be a bad thing, but in this specific inst. I could see it potentially becoming a decent article in itself. Chzz ► 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm surprised that no one, myself included, has thought to look at the actual guideline concerning forking. It states: Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. The way I interpret this is having spin-off articles on the matches is okay, but having more than one spin-off article on any given match is not, the final being obvious exception since there is much more coverage on that match than any of the others. So I would suggest is we either merge the group and knockout round articles into this one, which would make this article very bloated as well, or we simply get rid of this one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it before, and it's not particularly relevant here. This is a stand-alone list article. It's not a summary style spinout of anything, and it's not an unintentionally created example of duplication. The purpose of the article was, and still is, to intentionally present the basic match data of the whole tournament, as a list, with the full knowledge that it was also present in all the other articles highlighted already (that's why the results have always linked to the relevant sections in those articles). Infact, if anything, the purpose of this article is to present that information in a clearer and easier to manage format than in the places it already exists, which the guideline encourages. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main article might need pruning. Agathoclea (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2010 FIFA World Cup, I don't really see why this needs a separate page. BUC (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a useful easy to read summary of the matches in chronological order, which would not be so easy to extract quickly from the main article. Eldumpo (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2011 (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.