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 Delete, Snowball closure. --Angelo (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 English Big Four Clubs[edit]

2008 English Big Four Clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article just doesn't need to exist. The useful info is already at Premier League 2007–08, and this is just a POV laden piece Ged UK (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete. Irrespective of the author's seeming inability to write English, it's just a POV-ridden personal essay. Blackmetalbaz (talk)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.--Serviam (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All useful information is in the other article mentioned. As it is currently written it looks like POV and OR as well (although this would probably be correctable if there was any point). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:V and WP:OBVIOUS --Numyht (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rubbish. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can only concur with everyone else. Aaaaaaagh! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unencyclopedic ramble badly covering ground already adequately covered in several other articles. I'm intrigued to know, though, who the witch involved in the Chelsea-Liverpool game was though..... - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unencyclopedic article with lost of POV. Artene50 (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Aaaaaaargh! – PeeJay 09:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inaccurate, appalling English, POV, unencyclopaedic, OR... Dancarney (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Absurdly Easy Delete - an appaling piece of WP:CRUFT - there's no saving this one. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Any chance we can snowball this one? It is clearly completely unsalvagable as an encyclopedic article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, guys, you've made your point. I appreciate none of you have quite breached WP:CIVIL but I think if I was the author of this I wouldn't be feeling very enthused about helping out at Wikipedia any longer. Remember WP:BITE. AndyJones (talk) 13:09, 30 June 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.