Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 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 keep. There is no serious rationale for deletion, the issues can be done by editing. Tone 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 in sports

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

WP is not for news reports or for lists of statistics. There must be another site for this kind of data. BigJim707 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split or Delete As long as the length of the article goes down dramatically, I am OK with either splitting or deleting it. I don't believe that this collection of facts is needed. If it was split from another article due to length, then splitting the month into days is acceptable. If the article should not be split into days, then it should not be there at all. Thanks! The Phoenix--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 24. Snotbot t • c » 18:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about other months (e.g.,December 2010 in sports)? What about other years (e.g., August 2009 in sports)? Have a look in Category:2010 in sports and at Template:Events in sports by month links. Somebody's doing a lot of work that will need to be undone. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily keep but split per its already being split-tagged and at least 2 of the "August XX, 2010 in sports" lists already having been created. AfDing it seems premature, unless there's a clear failure to come to consensus to split it. There's a zillion articles like this. Deleting one month-in-topic article wouldn't make any sense. This should be speedily closed as a frivolous (though not bad-faith) nomination. No insult intended, but the nomination just doesn't make sense in a broader context. It's not like this is an article about someone's garage band; it's part of a systematic series of stand alone lists, and deletion of it would be blatantly disruptive to that system just to make a point. If someone want to get rid of the entire series of all such lists, then that needs to be a mass AfD that is advertised via Centralized Discussion and Village Pump, because it would be a Very Big Deal. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I mainly agree with your thoughtful comments. I would like to point out that if someone nominates one article of a series for deletion people will ask: "Why nominate only one when there are so many the same?" On the other hand if he nominates a bunch they will say: "He is disrupting the project by making so many nominations." :-) -BigJim707 (talk) 16:37, 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.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I did nominate this article more to make a protest than as a serious suggestion. What I think is really needed is a new policy: "WP is not a Database." I am also aware that I am kind of a lightweight here to be proposing such a major policy change. BigJim707 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I politely suggest you read WP:POINT? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. BigJim707 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, like all of the other year in whatever articles where there is enough content. Am encyclopedia is, actually, a database "an organized collection of data for one or more purposes" . Not a database of everything that exists, but certainly a database: that is actually the basic intent. What else is it supposed to be--a place for advocacy or speculative fiction? DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 2 March 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.