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. May be restored for selective merging purposes if someone urgently wants to merge one of the few sourced items from this grab-bag of indiscriminately collected information.  Sandstein  21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2008 miscellany[edit]

UEFA Euro 2008 miscellany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is pure trivia and is just a place to shove pieces of trivia that don't have a place in the main article(s). The title "miscellany" implies that it's going to be an article about trivial details. I suggest deleting this article and adding anything meaningful to the main article UEFA Euro 2008. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - I have nothing against trivia itself, but it should be integrated into the main article(s). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of the facts may be notable, are not written with a POV and can be tracked to realiable sources. But, the subject of the article itself fails notability standards. Lets get it right. Miscellanies are not notable by themselves, and are not what Wikipedia is about. I cannot say it violates WP:TRIVIA as that is a guideline, but the this kind of trivia listing does not justify the creation of an article itself. The EuroCup 2008 is also a recent event. The kind of info that the article contains may change rapidly, and should be included into the more general article only when the event is over, and only if the info itself is notable. --Legion fi (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is also a trivia page for the 2006 World Cup which is well written and is useful for reference. Trivia sections themselves are discouraged in the main article so they should have their own article. User:03md

Comment. Trivias are DISCOURAGED. <-- note the period. That doesn't mean that they are discouraged only for the main article. That means they are discouraged at all. I repeat myself. Wikipedia is not about trivias. And the existance of A to keep B is not a valid argument. Please base your arguments in policies. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But just for the record, I think that the "trivia" page for the world cup can be kept for several reasons over this one. It includes many good references, it isn't "just" a big amount of trivia but actually has useful info, the world cup is a worldwide event while the EURO just involves Europe (though it could be argued that the popularity of the two are on a similar level there's also the factor of there being more teams, players, games etc.) and a major point is the fact that the EURO 08 is indeed a current event as mentioned above and we cannot be sure of the notability of individual pieces of information now. However I would not support a miscellany page for the world cup but I'm not going to AfD it as it has been up and referenced for several months. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect anything usable to the main article. As above this will just become a list of trivia. Davewild (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what is relevant in the other articles, delete this one. --Tone 07:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In its current state, the article is not being used the way it was intended to be used. The miscellany article should include info on the match balls, the music of the tournament and other sundries, not just a list of pointless trivia. – PeeJay 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In fact, 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany consists of pretty much only trivia as well. I am nominating it here. --Tone 11:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the nominator nailed it. It's pretty unencyclopaedic collection of assorted facts. This violation of WP:TRIVIA can be corrected by merging anything useful into the UEFA Euro 2008 article, and the article can be deleted immediately. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should the following Euro 2008 articles be considered as merge with the main article?

• UEFA Euro 2008 sponsorship
• UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights
• UEFA Euro 2008 controversies
• UEFA Euro 2008 disciplinary record

...and basically anything else in the middle section of the following template;

--Jimbo^[online] 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say that UEFA Euro 2008 schedule is very redundant and should be nominated for deletion. UEFA Euro 2008 controversies is kind of premature and we can't tell what's going to be notable or not, but I'd say that can stay. I think the problem with the articles is redundancy, the question is, would the major article be too long if we merged everything from all of those in? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep May not agree to most policies, but I'd claim WP:IAR and use common sense. As I said for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany, these are vast and world-wide phenomenon that even records and statistics can become notable. And plus does it really hurt anyone such article. There are lots of people that consider this notable. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything of use to the main article. GiantSnowman 14:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per GW. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a perfectly encyclopedic collection of common football knowledge in the making, common knowledge that will be referred to again and again down through the years. If we do not know our history, are we not doomed to repeat it? One may as well delete lists of minor characters on Seinfeld and anime shows, "trivia" is functionally integral to yore. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - some of the information can be turned into prose and included easily in the main article. Unimportant things can be deleted outright. matt91486 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely irrelevant collection of trivia. Not even anything of use to merge to main Euro 2008 article. - fchd (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is, by definition, a trivia article and should be deleted. Any particularly important information here can be merged into the main Euro 2008 article, which already has a trivia section anyway. Terraxos (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 03md. --NeofelisNebulosa (моє обговорення) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Your going to have to come up with a better argument than that since this is not a vote but a discussion. O3md obviously misunderstood the trivia policy and his first argument is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS completely invalid as that article is up for deletion now as well. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a encyclopedia not a collection of trivial facts. Anything in this article which is worthy of note, should be put in the appropriate UEFA 2008 articles, essentially as WP:TRIVIA suggests. Delete the rest. Peanut4 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, anything notable in this article is duplicated elsewhere: Villa's hatrick is in UEFA European Football Championship, the first goal and cards can be worked out from the match report articles (it doesn't take a brain surgeon), the only thing to keep is oldest goalscorers, which could possibly go in a new page: UEFA European Football Championship records, along with some of the records currently in the championship page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this is going to be deleted, there will be lots of pages that have to be deleted. Miscellany isn't necessarily the same as trivia, and is useful to a lot of readers and fans. Maxcheung (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please enlighten us with which pages will "have to be deleted" (not that that is true, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) and please tell us precisely in what way is "miscellanea" different from "trivia", because from my observations here, the term "miscellanea" seems to be an excuse not to use the term "trivia" otherwise it's identical. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 15:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maxcheung, the existence of A similar to B to support B existence is not a valid argument. We are not talking about the other "lots of pages that have to be deleted". We are talking about this one. I agree sometimes miscellany isn't the same as trivia.. But read the article and realize that, IT IS TRIVIA. Also, the fact that it "is useful to a lot of readers and fans" means nothing towards NOTABILITY of the subject. Wikipedia IS NOT a repository of information. It is an encyclopedia. The fact that wikipedia is in the top of the search hits, does not justify the inclusion of a not encyclopedic article. --Legion fi (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that some of the entries here may be trivial in nature, it doesn't necessarily mean that the entire page should be deleted. Perhaps deleting some of the entries is a better option? Also, I would say many people would argue that the following pages are TRIVIAL and should be deleted. And besides, how do we decide whether something is notable?

• UEFA Euro 2008 sponsorship
• UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights
• UEFA Euro 2008 controversies
• UEFA Euro 2008 disciplinary record

And many would argue that pages such as Deaths in sports are TRIVIAL should be gone too. -- Maxcheung (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "And besides, how do we decide whether something is notable?" ... Would you mind checking the notability guideline? Thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. Cruft magnet as it stands. --John (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why is it that Wikipedia geeks seem to want to delete everything? Stop quoting stupid Wikipedia policies to backup your votes. I want to know what YOU think and not what some shit policy says. Wikipedia policies are decided by a very small number of very frequent Wikipedia users. Most ordinary users don't bother to vote on policies (or AFD, for that matter) because their views are never taken as seriously as that of long-time Wikipedians (who seem to win every argument because they can quote more policies). The majority of Wikipedia users never edit and the majority of Wikipedia editors (whether registered or anonymous) never vote for policies. Your policies are not representative and destroy what Wikipedia aims to be - an encyclopedic tool for everybody. And of course my view here won't be considered because I'm "not logged in" which is a joke considering how Wikipedia claims to allow people to edit anonymously (except when their opinion counts). Wikipedia has become a joke and is dominated by a small number of people who seem intent on controlling everything (and deleting much of the encyclopaedia).--217.202.22.246 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is why we have the deletion process, to weigh up individual articles against policy. If you wish to change policy, comment on what you dislike there, but until there is consensus to change the policies, we must measure individual articles to these policies. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right! Everyone knows that on Wikipedia the views of the admins and super-regular users are considered more important. Most regular users don't have time for the long-winded and endless discussions that take place on Wikipedia leaving every decision to the select few. --217.201.102.17 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but if "regular users" don't have as much time as the regulars, doesn't that really imply that they don't really care as much? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 23:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- article lacks relevence.- Gilliam (talk) 00:29, 21 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.