Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Internazionale Milano vs. Italian clubs

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. The title might need changing, but that aside the consensus is to keep this article. Hopefully someone will find sources, and update this article! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Internazionale Milano vs. Italian clubs

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the article mainly consists of the head-to-head records between clubs (an unencyclopedic topic as is) and contains no prose ("Excessive listing of statistics"); also contains no references nor external links, and would be difficult to maintain 100% (it hasn't itself been updated since November 2009). Azzurre (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Azzurre (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepable - a specialist reference book or football encylopedia would contain this information, so it's reasonable for Wikipedia to do so also. As the nominator correctly points out, our policy states that "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." This article is currently deficient in that regard, but I do think it is possible for text to be added to put parts of it into context. It is well-organized, and although parts of it are arguably not worth including ("excessive detail" is a debate for the article talk page; a football encyclopedia would include this level of information though), it is clear that the information can't just be merged into F.C. Internazionale Milano records and statistics since this page, Derby della Madonnina, Derby d'Italia and F.C. Internazionale Milano in Europe are already are, or contain, lengthy "broken out" subsections of that parent. This information is well-organized (as WP:NOT states, "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists" as has been done here) and the fact it is out of date could be reasonably amended since the statistics here are not particularly obscure to a subject enthusiast. TheGrappler (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the article on List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics is an FA, so any useful info from this article should be included on the existing article F.C. Internazionale Milano honours, records and statistics. Giant Snowman 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Snowman. Sandman888 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for consistency. If a little club like Luton can have a featured list with the same information on Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent, then so should Inter. Sandman888 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) OTOH, perhaps the Luton list should be merged into records and statistics? Sandman888 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge... referring to Luton Town, is it really at all significant that they've gone 2-1-1 against Royal Ordnance Factories F.C., a club that hasn't been around since 1896? I understand the "Luton has one, so it makes sense for Inter to, also" argument, but the degree some of them go to is absurd. But looking at these charts, the information is just... trivial. A merger into F.C. Internazionale Milano honours, records and statistics (as a straight-forward sortable table) makes much more sense to me than a stand-alone article.

Of course, all of that would STILL need a source; the current article doesn't have a reference to anything. I don't know where one could be found online. Surely, there are some in print somewhere (most likely in Italian), but either way, those numbers would need to be confirmed. And of course, those numbers would be changing every time Inter played a match. And considering this article hadn't been updated since 22 November 2009, as I said in the beginning, there's even more work that would need to go into it to get it current.

Is there anybody who would care to take on that project? The fact that it hadn't been updated in nine months leads me to believe that there isn't. (But that's not a fair argument for an AfD, I know, but I'm just making that point.) Azzurre (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep along the same lines as Sandman. The Luton list has previously been AfD'd and kept, and it would therefore be entirely wrong to delete this more important one (before I'm accused of tribal digs, it's more important than any potential Watford one would be as well). I'm not opposed to a merge, but if that is the result, it should be applied universally. --W F C-- 17:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can be sourced, and rename to F.C. Internazionale Milano league record by opponent which is a better title. Mostly per Sandman and WFC. I'm not entirely convinced about the need for a separate, although the info if verifiable is good and should be kept - but the wider issue would be better discussed at an RfC than at AfD. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2010 (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.