Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 30, 2010 in sports

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. Sandstein 13:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 30, 2010 in sports[edit]

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

Do we really want to go down this road? We are not the news; we are not a collection of statistics. 2010 in sports? Fine. August 2010 in sports? Maybe, although that needs serious trimming, not splitting off into individual days, which just seems absurd. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete both and entire concept as well. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an almanac of sports data. BigJim707 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with BigJim707. This article just cites other events that already have their own pages and adds nothing more then the fact those unrelated sporting events took place on the same day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and "August 2010 in sports" OR Keep this article

As long as the length of the August 2010 in sports article goes down dramatically, I am OK with either splitting or deleting August 2010 in sports. I don't believe that this collection of facts is needed. If August 2010 in sports was split from another article due to length, then splitting August 2010 in sports into days is acceptable. If August 2010 in sports should not be split into days, then August 2010 in sports should not be there at all. Thanks! The Phoenix--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Wikipedia does not need individual articles about single days in sports. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia does not need an individual article about August 2010 in sports either.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't see the reason for that, see Template:Events in sports by month links would deleting ONE month really make sense? JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If August 2010 in sports remains, then it should be split. If it shouldn't be split, then it should be deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what the outcome is the article is vital to wikipedia and needs to remain JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is extremely difficult to navigate a page that is over 300 kB, this is one of the reasons that I started splitting the page. If the dates can be linked to via the August 2010 in sports, then clicking to one particular date is no big deal. Musician Award, Band Member, Discography, Songs and Tours pages (case in point Slipknot) come about because the page about the artist becomes too long, and the same thing is happening with August 2010 in Sports.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The month articles should be heavily trimmed, not spun off into even narrower subpages. Wikipedia does not need pages which compile the scores of every individual sporting event that happened to be played in any given time period, be it a day, a week, a month or a year; even the month lists really only warrant the listing of important events, such as Olympic Games or the Pan-American Games or the annual NHL Draft, not individual game stats. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this reduces the page size, then I'm down.--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2012 (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.