Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collingwood Magpies 2006 Season

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood Magpies 2006 Season[edit]

I seem to recall a season article on an individual club being deleted before. Does there really need to be an article for each club for each year, especially as the competition has just started and theres nothing particularly notable about Collingwood 2006? Note this and Sydney Swans 2006 Season are the only AFL club-season articles in Category:Australian Football League seasons. These should be deleted or merged to 2006 Australian Football League season (p.s sorry eddie) -- Astrokey44|talk 06:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Also the content has now been transferred to AFL wikia so it would not be lost if deleted -- Astrokey44|talk 07:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Other articles exsist for American and English Football clubs, keep per Australians are wikipedians too :) That and a merge with either article would make the resulting article very long. T K E 06:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify I do realize that this is for one season of the club. T K E 17:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- not that different from the many Cricket related articles of this type. I find the information interesting and worthy of inclusion - and I care little for football. - Longhair 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2005 Longhorn is clearly an out of the ordinary season - "The 2005 Longhorns have been calculated statistically to be the greatest college football team of all time" whereas Collingwood here have just started and last year came 15th out of 16 teams. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My decision was a personal one, based on Wikipedia is not paper, so there is room for leeway, and these are the major professional clubs in Australia. I would not vote to keep anything less than Premier League for England or the major sport networks of America for this kind of article. As professional sports articles are a major draw to Wikipedia on search engines, I'm all fer it. T K E 17:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TKE. But how anyone could find this interesting if they care little for football is beyond me! ConDemTalk 06:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Delete, after actually understanding that there was another Collingwood Magpies article! ConDemTalk 07:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Collingwood Football Club which already has its own history section or 2006 Australian Football League season which appears to be setup for this purpose. See also Sydney Swans 2006 Season for similar treatment as it's of the same setup and format as the nominated article. ClarkBHM 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Eusebeus 09:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Arnzy (Talk) 10:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both this and Sydney Swans 2006 Season Kevin McE 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Clarke. Transwikiing to AFL wikia was a good move too. go Pies! pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely legitimate and too large for merging to be sensible. Let's see these for all major clubs. Chicheley 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An entirely welcome precedent. Wikipedia is only just getting started so it is unfair to point out that not all AFL teams have season articles yet. ReeseM 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let Wikipedia built the world's best encyclopedia of sport. Calsicol 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopaedic. By the time the 2006 footy season is over it would be large enough to warrant it's own article, even if it's on the small side now. - Synapse 13:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Precedent's are allowed to be set. Merging into a general 2006 article will cause the merged article to be way to large and unmanageable. Is the content unique? I say yes! Will it be referenced in the future, 1 year? 10 years? 50 years?... yes yes yes. Anubis1975 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying that each upcoming weekend to update the football scores on wikipedia you have to update seventeen different articles? - just for one sport! (also note that the article was not updated with last weekends 77-111 loss to Adelaide) -- Astrokey44|talk 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. This is sure a precedent I don't want to see; the sports sections are cluttered enough without this encroachment. What's next, a demand to have articles for individual games? RGTraynor 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to use the word precendent in most any RfD. I have my own personal ones, but few general ones. There are articles for individual cricket matches, which are complex and merit an article. I can find no real reason to delete other than "why have it?", which isn't good enough for me. There's no demand, it's just something an editor put some time into that is trivial, but not NN nor spam. T K E 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopaedic information. --Terence Ong 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Collingwood Magpies per above. Much to my surprise, I find I wouldn't be aghast at this being kept, but I'd still rather see it happily edited down and merged. Lord Bob 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid content. Would distort any article it was merged into. Hawkestone 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. While much of the information present would indeed distort anything it's merged into, by trimming a lot of the stuff out (like the information for each player, which I feel is better on a page for that individual), you're left mostly with a list of players and the team's schedule/scores, which shouldn't be a distortion of a page like 2006 Australian Football League season if similar info for other teams was added. Each season for each team doesn't need its own page; only particularly noteworthy seasons do. —LrdChaos 19:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as above. The rot has to stop somewhere. We can't have an article for hundreds of teams every year. Imarek 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is progress not "rot". Golfcam 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the 2006 AFL article. We may also want to let the creator know about the AFL wiki so that he or she can edit it as they have put in a lot of work. Individual team seasons aren't generally notable unless they achieve something noteworthy such as winning the premiership. There would be a case for the Collingwood Magpies 1990 Season article as they were the first AFL premiers in that year. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Collingwood article and a holistic 2006 AFL season article. Do the same for the Swannies. -- Saberwyn 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this would be a very bad precedent to set. Clubs may be notable, but an article for each season?! No. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an extremely bad precedent to set. This goes beyond the realm of an encyclopædia.--cj | talk 06:29, 10 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Collingwood_Magpies_2006_Season&oldid=1137725415"