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. If anyone wants a user-space copy, ask me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 in Football[edit]

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

This random list of match results was recently split from August 2010 in sports. It is nothing but with an incredibly long list with no inclusion or exclusion criteria. There are no sources at all, and nothing to indicate why an indiscriminate list like this would be notable. Should be deleted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Big Dom 17:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete or Merge - the lack of a lead paragraph/inclusion criteria/references can be addressed as a clean-up issue. Unfortunately, judging by the proliferation of similar list articles, reinforced by the comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 in sports and the request to split the August 2010 in sports article, I doubt there's going to be much support to delete this new list. I don't think Wikipedia should be a place to list sports results, ~~but consensus seems to decide otherwise~~. Sionk (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my 'vote' based on the comments by the author on the article and its Talk page. If no-one knows the scope of the article, it will simply become an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of football results. The author argues on the article that they intend to significantly prune the list and return it to August 2010 in sports, which may be a sensible solution, perhaps listing only the major finals or fixtures? My only question would be how the numerous remaining 'Month in...' lists should be dealt with... Sionk (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT. This is just a list of results and statistics which is unencyclopedic. --Jimbo^[online] 11:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having taken the trouble to explain what I am doing, in Talk:August 2010 in sports, and why the articles are in the state that they are, I am disapointed to say the least to be in this position. My main concern was to extract a half decent article out of the pig's ear that was August 2010 in sports and remove the split tag. If this is incredibly long then I really don't know what BigDom would have made of the article before I started, all of his concerns apply to the original article, only more so. I would have preferred the easy way out and had August 2010 in sports deleted, but as pointed out above, it survived a previous deletion attempt. I would have liked to remove the split tag and put an improve tag on, but the article was just uneditable (whether or not there is such a word). The approach that I took was the only way. I would have prefered have spent my time improving the encyclopedia constructively rather than have to deal with this waste of time. Yes waste of time, because if my comments on the talk page had been read then you would know it was always my intention to have this article deleted when August 2010 in sports is completed. It is just an interim article. If this article is deleted before I can complete August 2010 in sports then August 2010 in sports will have no football related entries. If that is what is required then by all means, go ahead and delete it. It will only reduce my workload. Op47 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to not seeing your latest comment on that page so apologies for that. Maybe it would be better to userfy the articles until they are in a more encyclopaedic state? I would be happy to help you do that. But IMO lists like these are far from useful. There's more happens in a month of football (and other sports) than can be summarised by an arbitrary list of results. Big Dom 21:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. If the events are notable in themselves, articles can be created and then grouped under one category. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need an article listing every result that happened on a particular day of the year. – Pee Jay 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DigDom, Apology noted, I will take it that it is fine to remerge the football section into August 2010 in sports when I do that. Regarding "userfication", what advantage does that offer? I expect to spend about 3 manhours doing the merginge which I will have to do offline in any case (for a variety of reasons). I expect (internet connection willing) to have completed by Sunday at the latest. If there is a SIGNIFICANT advantage in taking that route then fine, however given my present understanding, I think it would be more trouble than it is worth.

Sionk, I have no idea whether this article is an anomaly in the series or whether they are all this bad. My view is international events only, and only extremely unusual events in domestic competitions. By extremely unusual events, I talking about things like the battle of Bramhall Lane or a giant killing by say a 4 tier difference (eg Barrow beat Arsenal). The most important thing is to get August 2010 in sports into an editable state (at the moment is just locks my browser when I try to edit it). In light of my experience here, a deletion exempt tag would be jolly useful. I could really have done without this distraction. Perhaps ther ought to be a project who will look after these lists (if there is support for the lists then it should be possible) and if so that project would define the standard for the lists. If there are any further comments to be made re August 2010 in sports then I suggest that they be placed on that article's talk page. That is where I will place progress rather than here. Op47 (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - This article is actually bigger then 2010 in association football, so it includes way too much information. I'd say that userfication is the best solution, so that Op47 can finish his work on August 2010 in sports. If lists like that should be deleted, it should be brought up to a wider audience in a mass-AfD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 in sports. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anyone wants to see those results he should just go to soccerway and browse that month. -Koppapa (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT Nfitz (talk) 15:17, 15 July 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.