Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish national team 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish national football team results

This is a collection of every match the Irish national football team has ever played. As established before, this is unsuitable, Wikipedia is not a statistics minutiae database, not RSSSF, this fails WP:NOT. Punkmorten (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 12:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Keep - Having seen other arguments, I have to say the reasons for keeping these articles far outweigh the reasons for deleting them. – Pee Jay 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know other Crap exists is not an argument but what about England national football team results, England national football team games - 1870s, England national football team games - 1880s, England national football team games - 1890s & England national football team games - 1900s? There's also a whole category of Scottish resuts. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should be not about deleting articles. It should be about expanding knowledge. This list is better then the equivalent article on Rsssf and includes more games and more info. If you delete these you will also have to delete above articles as well. The fact that several similar articles for other national teams also exist demonstrates a demand and shows they are not unprecedented. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. The similar articles for England and Scotland could do with being nominated too. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand upon my reasoning, lists can generally be one of three types: those that bring together a group of articles on a certain subject (e.g. List of Manchester City F.C. managers), those that act as a timeline (e.g. the articles in Category:Seasons in football (soccer) by country) and those that bring together a finite set of items not notable enough for their own articles (e.g. lists of minor characters in TV series). Some lists include more than one of these elements, but all have (or should have) one thing in common: placement in a wider context. These articles do not provide context, and hence IMO they fall into the realm of "indiscriminate collection of information". Similar information exists in articles in the football seasons by country category (e.g. 1888-89 in English football), but placed a wider context. The place for this sort of information is the timelines YYYY-YY in Irish football, not a standalone article. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are clearly not merely an "indiscriminate collection of information"; they provide the only details on WP of these matches - until the YYYY-YY in Irish football articles have been created, the lists of results are an important resource and should be kept. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they fall under criteria three. There is a finite list of X matches Ireland have played, and each individual match is not notable for its own entry. Peanut4 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles should be kept. As pointed out, they are other similar articles on Wikipedia and I think all these articles provide a good source of information. Wikipedia should be about providing information not deleting it. WP:NOT#STATS is there to avoid confusing lists of stats and poor readability. I don't think these articles are like this. If people think they are too statistical why not add in prose about each year to improve them rather than to delete them. Abc183 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If deleted how does a list of FA Cup Final results, play-off final results, League Cup final results, etc, etc, fall into this? Peanut4 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact what's the difference between the above Irish, English and Scottish entries and the current plethora of X F.C. season 2007-08? Peanut4 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the Category:Seasons in football (soccer) by year articles do not include a list of all results, and do include lots of other info (at least the good ones, e.g. Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08; not the bad ones, e.g. Clyde F.C. season 2007-08) jnestorius^(talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08 does not include a list of results and is also a very good entry. While Clyde F.C. season 2007-08 fits perfectly the explanation in WP:NOT#STATS of "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers" since half the entry is not even correctly labelled. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW 2007 New England Patriots season and 1972 Miami Dolphins season are currently linked from the front page ITN. jnestorius^(talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We frequently have match results at this level of detail with respect to specific tournaments, so the only real difference here is that they are also tabulated for one individual national team across all years. I don't think that violates WP:NOT. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Punkmorten says: "As established before, this is unsuitable": Could you point me to where this was established before? WP:NOT#STATS says "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." As Abc183 says, that's not a strong argument for deleting this instance. Really what's needed is a discussion at WP:NOT involving the various sports wikiprojects about the notability and inclusivity criteria for sports results. Until that time, these pages are among the better examples of that genre currently included, and deserve a stay of execution. jnestorius^(talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep these have been hived off from the main article and are readable, an international is more notable than a club side. My primary concern would be copyright, while a small subsection would qualify as fair use, I dont know if a record in it's entirity would Fasach Nua (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While organisations can certainly copyright lists of future fixtures, I wouldn't think you could copyright lists of results of matches which have occurred, as they are a matter of historical record..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the baseball people took some almanac to court over publishing their results and won, I dont know enough about US copyright law to make a determination, and I dont have enough of an interest in baseball to know much about this case Fasach Nua (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of this discussion is keep, I would propose listing them at potential copyright problems to have someone with a greater familiarity with copyright law to have a look at them Fasach Nua (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo (assuming the equivalent England Results pages and/or the similar Club Statistics by Season are not soon nominated for the same prospective fate as the Irish versions). To me, WP:NOT#STATS appears to refer specifically to lists within written articles, and as such the results are not indiscriminate collections either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:28, 3 January 2008 (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.