Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Africa vs Wales at rugby union
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. Owen× ☎ 18:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa vs Wales at rugby union[edit]
The content is non-encyclopaedic and extremely narrow in focus. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this page is allowed, then ALL pages listing results between Team X and Team Y throughout history should also be allowed. Zunaid 08:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In order to avoid duplication please vote/comment only in this section for both this article as well as South Africa vs Ireland at rugby union. The merits are exactly the same for both articles. Zunaid
- Keep Useful record of international matches between two countries in significant sport. Capitalistroadster 09:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: By extrapolation then, every significant sport between countries could have a listing here? Surely that would be overkill, one article per sport per opposing country is simply too much. If you do want this kept then wouldn't something like "South Africa vs others at rugby union" be better? Zunaid 11:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It would become too large and more importantly it can't be categorised under both Wales and South Africa, which would mean we would need to produce each list twice, nearly doubling the amount of server space devoted to the subject. CalJW 13:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Call me pedantic, but then the Ireland article should be under "Ireland vs South Africa at rugby union", in keeping with the Wikipedia policy of listing countries in alphabetical order ;) Zunaid 13:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It would become too large and more importantly it can't be categorised under both Wales and South Africa, which would mean we would need to produce each list twice, nearly doubling the amount of server space devoted to the subject. CalJW 13:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: By extrapolation then, every significant sport between countries could have a listing here? Surely that would be overkill, one article per sport per opposing country is simply too much. If you do want this kept then wouldn't something like "South Africa vs others at rugby union" be better? Zunaid 11:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, two major countries in a major sport. Kappa 11:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An almanac style article. Wikipedia:What is an article states in its first sentence that wikipedia incorporates an almanac. It will be a splendid thing to create the world's first comprehensive collection of major sports results, all ad-free and wikified. CalJW 13:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In response to Zunaid's comment that one article per sport per combination of countries is too much... I think this is a perfect example of where the much-abused 'WP:NOT paper' guideline comes in handy. That said, we don't need an article on every single combination of countries and sports, just the ones which are... well... interesting. An article saying 'Senegal and Brazil do not have much sporting history in the field of curling' should plainly be deleted, and an article merely listing sports results sans commentary would be borderline at least. --Last Malthusian 13:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, rename the Ireland article per Zunaid. --Last Malthusian 13:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks fine to me. I agree that if these pages are kept, we should also allow informative pages for other records of international matches. That's a good thing. Factitious 21:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CalJW, and rename per Zunaid. Both need a cleanup, though. Sam Vimes 23:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and cleanup, as per CalJW. Carioca 00:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Capitalistroadster -- Ian ≡ talk 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'll add to Last Malthusian's comments with the fact that until recent years there were only about a dozen countries that played RU, and Wales, Ireland and SA are among the eight top nations tradition-wise (along with England, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, and France) so we're hardly looking and screeds of articles. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 24 November 2005 (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.