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 no consensus for deletion, if there is a consensus it is closer to keeping than deleting. Note that repetitively tagging votes with links to the WP:ATA essay is discouraged by the essay itself.

...it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged.

Many of the keep votes are indeed rather vague, but several here have made a reasonable argument that the article is a useful navigational aid, something which is a legitimate purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2012 schedule[edit]

UEFA Euro 2012 schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

It is a totally redundant content fork to UEFA Euro 2012. Every date, venue and result information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a separate article for a schedule. Article also doesn't meed the GNG, as there are no independent coverage in reliable sources, which discuss the schedule of this competition. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete as per the reason above, the article content covered in main article on the tournament already. No need to merge.Seasider91 (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 169.587 hits in a single day say speedy keep and snowball close. Moreover, the schedule page presents the data at-a-glance in a userfriendly table format that is nevertheless not useful for the main article. Thus, the page greatly increases reader access to a specific data subset. Imho it would be a disservice to readers to delete/redirect the page. You may notice how I keep using the word "page" instead of "article", because obviously the page is not a full article by any measure. The question is: does it have to be? What's the harm in offering the reader a highly useful overview over this highly notable set of data? Why not propose merger or deletion after the competition is concluded? Why does it have to be right now? --195.14.221.65 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:PAGEVIEWSTATS are not valid reasons to keep any article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My arguments provide an excellent reason not to nominate the page for deletion in the first place. Again: Why not propose merger or deletion after the competition is concluded? Why does it have to be right now? I also reject your characterization of my reasoning as WP:ITSUSEFUL, which clearly states that this concerns only !votes without argumentation. I did provide my reasoning for why exactly the page is useful, therefore WP:ITSUSEFUL does not apply. You may want to actually read essays before citing them. If you don't agree with my reasoning that the main article does not present an at-a-glance overview of the schedule, just say so. But please don't pretend that I didn't present any reasoning, that's simply not collegial or honest. --195.14.221.65 (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for providing the WP:ITSUSEFUL link. Note, however, that WP:ITSUSEFUL includes the following: "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context." No-itsme (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Euro 2012 already has the schedule information, but redirect could be useful. Brandmeister^talk 09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article shouldn't be deleted, because it provides all information on matches timing. However, the Euro 2012 page just provides the schedule on a group basis which is inconvenient (because you have through every group to know the schedule. A.h. king • Talk to me! 14:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate entries on every match of the group stage and they contain the related schedule, see UEFA_Euro_2012#Group_stage. Brandmeister^talk 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is more convenient to have all the schedule in one article. A.h. king • Talk to me! 18:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is an incredibly useful page.de Mediātōre Scientiae (discutere) 23:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We're not TV Guide, and the information is redundant. Ask yourself this question: "Will the information this page be at all useful six months from now?" The answer vhere is no, and therefore this isn't material for Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself this question: "Is the page useful right now?" Then what's the hurry? Why not delete it after Euro 2012 has concluded? Why right now? --195.14.221.65 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the information is redundant -- Not entirely, no. The main article contains no chronologically sorted overview. You may argue that that's not sufficient to justify a separate page, but there is in fact information in the schedule page that isn't currently included in the main article in any form. --195.14.207.176 (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is really useful. Secretlondon (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSUSEFUL. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Encyclopaedic information in a reader friendly form that Wikipedia does so well. This at a glance information will be as valid in 1,000 years as it is today. The only real question is where to place the chart - is it better in a click-through stand-alone, or embedded in the main article in a collapsible. Not really a question for AfD. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Extremely useful article which I myself have had stickied in my browser for the past week. I can't fathom why anyone would be so anal as to nominate this for deletion. --Schcambo (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSUSEFUL. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Get over yourself mate. Numerous users here have given numerous reasons as to why it should be kept, which is explicitly allowed under WP:ITSUSEFUL. I'd advise you accept that other people have a different opinion from you and move onto something more fruitful and worthwhile than this discussion. --Schcambo (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I strongly agree that this page should not be deleted as it contains all relevant info about the match results. Trelos physikos (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  UEFA Euro 2012 also contain all the relevant info about the match results. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, but not in a concise and chronologically ordered format as found in this page. I think that his alone justifies this page's existence. Finally, about the WP:ITSUSEFUL, please stop quoting it again and again, by now we are all familiar with it...Trelos physikos (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Needs to be fleshed out, but it is notable. Nominator's assertion that there is no coverage is false. Just Google "Euro 2012 schedule". Tchaliburton (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But they only contain the schedule and don't discuss it in detail. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there is little in the way of analytical examination of the schedule. How does that render the schedule of the UEFA Euro 2012 a non-notable subtopic? No offence, but doesn't this all strike you as a rather pointless exercise at this point? What are you hoping to achieve? An AfD would have had far better chances a month ago, or a month from now. And you know that perfectly well, which once again begs the question: Why right now? --195.14.207.70 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't see, why an article should be kept for one more month, if it doesn't belong there. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 16:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You're missing the point: This AfD is rapidly failing, and foreseeably so. The question is, why then did you nominate it for deletion at this exact point in time, when you must have known the AfD would have no chance during the tournament? Tell me you're not just making a point similar to how you keep citing ITSUSEFUL, or how you tagged the page for lack of secondary sources on the day of the opening match instead of just popping a FUKITOL and moving on. --78.35.236.49 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't see the future and therefore I had no idea, how it would end. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's either naive or dishonest. Which do you consider less unflattering? We'll just settle on that. --78.35.236.49 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep THis is extremely useful and is not redundant at all: it organises the matches by date, not by group. Definitely do NOT delete this - it will be a huge loss of a very useful page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.75.29 (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — 81.68.75.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

  WP:ITSUSEFUL. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you have actually read WP:ITSUSEFUL. If people say that an article is useful and give reasons, that is a argument for inclusion - "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." The above keep comment gives valid reasons for keeping. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I know WP:ITSUSEFUL, but still don't really think it's sensible to delete such an eminently useful piece of information. —Nightstallion 13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It provides users with infos in one single article and therefore it should not be deleted. Those infos can't be found on the main article (time and stadium). Oh, and Armbrust, just stop with the WP:ITSUSEFUL, really annoying to see it under every comment, just because someone has another opinion. Kante4 (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• *Keep. One place to quickly find match results, timetable etc. בורה בורה (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — בורה בורה (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Are you implying that it's useful? --195.14.207.70 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's just a fork, all the info is already in the main article. It's not going to be fleshed out even if it passes this AFD - it will most likely be nominated for deletion after the competition finishes anyway. Nanonic (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please keep. This page is clearly very useful to many readers. Even if this happens to be a case where Wikipedia's notability rules might endorse deletion, WP:IAR should be used to keep the page. 91.224.27.227 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. This page is far more useful than the main page on the Euro 2012 - I found this first and then was very confused by the less helpful main page. This is better organized and has pertinent details that are missing in the other page. One other option is to put this at the top of the other page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.60.248 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2012 — 174.51.60.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. This page has day to day utility for the duration of the tournament. Also, it is useful independently as a clear timeline of the matches. The main page is fine for the the first time visitor, but this page is of more practical use. Should be preserved for posterity. --Darwin (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to UEFA Euro 2012. This is a content fork that has no need to exist as a standalone article. If this table is designed in a superior fashion to the main article page then that is a good argument to merge it into the main and replace the less useful tables. Resolute 22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The info in the main article's group stage section is sorted by groups, and it includes the group tables. So this table couldn't replace the content of the group stage section. One viable alternative has been proposed further above, to just add the schedule table there, perhaps in a collapsible box. Personally, I still believe it makes more sense (I know, I know, WP:ITMAKESMORESENSE) to keep it as a separate page for the time being. I certainly see no harm in it. We could even break new ground here and decide now that the page will be redirected to the main page at the conclusion of the competition. Why not? --195.14.199.250 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Simple deletion is wrong because this contains a chronological summary, something not contained in the main article. A merge is possible, I suppose, but would result in the main article getting too cluttered. Perhaps move to Chronological Summary of UEFA Euro 2012 and then add sections with Details on Day 1, Day 2, etc. underneath the table? Smartyllama (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd rather we not "solve" this in the usual way by jumping through hoops and awkwardly expanding the scope of the page to meet the arbitrarily enforced demands of some self-appointed content zealots. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why this page of all, highly useful and closing in on a million views for only a couple of days, has to be deleted right now. Until then, no jumping through their hoops for me. --195.14.199.250 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All I'm saying is that if this page provides no notable information by itself (which I don't believe is the case), expanding would be better than deleting. I say keep as is, but I prefer expansion to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, I'd rather keep it as is too. As far as merge vs expand goes, I'm firmly on the fence for now. I don't really like either of these alternatives. --213.168.108.25 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I use it multiple times a day, I only came here to say this because of the deletion notice. Are you people serious? For the love of god keep it. Thank you. If it really bothers you so much, delete it after the tournament. 46.137.188.72 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — 46.137.188.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Chronology is content. Saying that the info on this page is the same as the main Euro page shows a deep misunderstanding of what original information actually is. A timeline is information, even if each event is already described somewhere else -- ask a history teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.174.127 (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2012 — 212.198.174.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. If anything, the schedule on UEFA Euro 2012 should be shortened and this one should be expanded. Not only is this article useful now, but it's a good encyclopaedic reference to have for this competition after the fact. Jun-Dai (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no need for this fork. GiantSnowman 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For reasons stated above and: Just try to find the answer to "what matches are played today?" elsewhere. Antti29 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until 2. July or just over the tournament after it delete or merge with the main Euro 2012 page. DoctorHver (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the most sensible compromise imho. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jun-Dai above. UEFA Euro 2012 is full of scheduling and match minutia that doesn't belong on a general overview page and belongs on UEFA Euro 2012 schedule. See 2008 Olympics#Calendar for a fabulous use of limited space to convey a lot of information. (Also, each event had its own sub-page; see Rowing at the 2008 Summer Olympics for instance). If UEFA Euro 2012 schedule survives, I hope we use it to its full potential - which is to siphon off minutia from UEFA Euro 2012. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any material (of the sort you appear to be talking about) added to the schedule page would only mean having to scroll a bit further, to the table. I'm against using the page as a dump for barely and non-noteworthy details from the main article. Just weed out those unneeded details from the main article. No need to move them elsewhere. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this information is already included in the parent article and I don't think there is a good reason to reproduce it in more detail here. Jogurney (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As noted numerous times above, this page presents in one convenient table all the results in the group stage. ----PCStuff (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The information provided in the Article is a matter of record. Reference to the same in the consolidated form may be useful subsequently. Also note that on most mobile platforms the page is the easiest to access. 182.71.109.102 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC) S Roy.[reply]
• Keep - The page makes the dates, times and information easy to understand and get to, while the main article fails to do so. Maybe it would have been better to have this table somehow smaller and integrated into the main article, but please do not simply delete it now. Boccobrock•T•C 15:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The scheduled of the games is clearly stated on official EUFA website and with more detail too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.213.146 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with some of the comments, this information is clearly written on the parent website providing no need to create a whole Wiki page. UEFA website is also very easy to access and actually even more convenient then this article, in a matter of fact is that when a user searches up the scheduled games on any search engines the main website is the very first on the list. The only real reason why some of you saying to keep is because users recognize Wiki better then "Official UEFA Webpage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.213.146 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the schedule is compact, easy to navigate, in a much more usable format - to get the sasme info on the big page one would need to navigate throughout the article. For one - there are no times for the first round matches. Secondly - the dates are not in chronological order but by bracket, and there IS no single place where the schedule is listed in the "main" article, despite the assertions above. Those of you who are banging the "delete" drum don't need to view this article but it clearly has great appeal to about half the folks here. That, in and of itself, is meaningful. Go get a life and worry about something important and don't take away what is a bloody useful page based on some philosophical pontification or pedantic niggling, which doesn't pass the common sense test. If half the people find this useful, what value is there in deletion? None. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.22 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't understand - what is the big deal in keeping this page for a couple more weeks? Many people (including me) find it useful to have the matches listed in chronological order. I mean, I can see some sense in arguing about the CREATION of such a page BEFORE a tournament like this. But arguing about deleting a useful schedule page, when people are repeatedly telling everyone why they find it useful? Sheesh! Wikipedia does have some mystery-brains around. Just keep this for two weeks and then nobody will argue against your deletion endeavor. (spankingmachine) 20:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spankingmachine (talk • contribs)

• Yes, the style and especially the timing give the AfD nomination a slightly "knee-jerky" vibe. I hope that will figure into the final decision. --87.78.46.182 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Or better yet, snowball or whatever it's called. The entire discussion brings the editorial staff of wikipedia into disrepute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.32.199 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The arguments for deletion seem to come down to WP:IDL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Euro 2012 schedule must not be deleted because it is the only article we can access to get information on when each game starts. There is no need to merge or delete the article. Hansen Sebastian 13:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Sebastian (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Anyone mentioned how useful it is to have all matches at a glance? Should not have been nominated in the first place. Spc 21 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Don't we have a lot of "___ schedule" articles? If so, this never should have been nominated for deletion — other articles with similar names mean that this is at the minimum a reasonable search target, so the most that should be done is conversion to a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until euro 2012 is over, then merge it with the main euro 2012 page. It will be useful till the end of the championship. Michael (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I counter WP:ITSUSEFUL with WP:IAR. Zarcadia (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – b_jonas 10:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:NOREASON. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Comments that do not contain an argument for or against deletion will be ignored in the closing of the AfD. --78.35.239.12 (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the schedule format is a lot easier to read than the tables in the main article. In particular, the table tells the time (not just the date) and the day of week of all group stage matches immediately, shows how the matches from different groups are interleaved, lets you find the upcoming matches easily. – b_jonas 10:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --78.35.239.12 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; top google hit for "Euro 2012 schedule". Delete/merge it after the competition is over for all I care but right now is not a good time. Steevm (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; So surprised to see this marked for deletion, I've been using this page as my go-to reference for the tournament's results as they come in since I found it. There is no equivalent on the main page, where the dates are not in chronological order but by bracket, there are no times for the first round matches, and results are harder to find and unwieldy to navigate. No-itsme (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steevm. Outback the koala (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the incredibly high number of page-hits via google, it's reasonably to assume that the "anonymous" comments are indeed actual users of wikipedia. Indeed, no website or forum has been linked as a source of these comments, despite the high number of page-views. The "not a ballot"-tag, or any other tag, should not be abused or used as a source to "win" a discussion despite reasonable and definite objections from other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.32.199 (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• With all due respect for the !voting process, I think the sentiment is pretty clearly in favor of keeping the article. I would like to see the delete tag taken down from the article because it's such a highly-visited one and tags like that are just a nuisance for readers. To put it in perspective, this article has received over 1 million hits this month, while Acrocercops erebopa (an article I found via the random page tool) received 36 (32,000x less). I think practical concerns are most important here. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Brace for incoming AADD shortcuts. Seriously, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. This AfD is already overdue for closure. It's an embarassment for us as a project to even had this nominated in the first place. Now the ugly and useless tag is still up there after a week. Could some admin please put this AfD out of its misery? --78.35.245.253 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not schedule: "an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable". Redundant fork is pulling readers away from UEFA Euro 2012. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By your logic we shouldn't have articles about upcoming events at all, saying strictly based on the way you're reading a delete rationale out of that WP:NOTDIR sentence. Geez, let's hurry and delete other clearly unacceptable stuff then, like 2012 Summer Olympics. You took the word "schedule", which in that sentence refers to radio schedules, to refer to the match schedule of one of the most notable recurring events in the world? Don't blame me if that sounds stupid to you. It's what you did. Also, "pulling readers away"? Readers read whatever they want to read. If they prefer a concise, chronologically ordered schedule over your precious main article, who are you to tell them they're "wrong" about that? Maybe you should work in a socialist re-education camp with your attitude. This warrants another Geez. Some people. [courtesy edit] Imho, the normative opinion you're displaying there is not fit for an online project financed by donations from the reading public. Who are we to tell the people that gave the page more than a million hits in under two weeks that they are "wrong" for looking at the page? It does seem like a strange attitude to me. --78.35.245.253 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you give Wikipedia:No personal attacks a read. Nanonic (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me? How about you give the valid points in my comment a read? --78.35.245.253 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Your comment presents valid opinions which I happen to agree with. But that still doesn't excuse the personal attacks. Smartyllama (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But I was merely illustrating my argument by pointing out how ludicrous it is to base a deletion rationale on "the page is pulling readers away from the main article". Some normativity is of course necessary in compiling an encyclopedia, but making a judgment call as to what readers should prefer? That's just mighty awkward; an attitude more fit for a re-education camp than for an online project that is made by volunteers for a reading public on whose donations we rely. That was the point of that comparison. If you prefer to read it as personal attack, that's on you, it's not my intended meaning at all. --78.35.245.253 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nonsense, all content is on the individual group result pages. Only diff is opening/closing ceremony which can be added with source to the main page/Lihaas (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That "argument" has been addressed many times over already. The main article does not contain a chronologically sorted list of the matches. That's very real information not included in the main article. --78.35.245.253 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. IMO it's useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velociraptor888 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 17 June 2012‎
• Keep. ...until after the final, then it'll be redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.16.134 (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ...until after the final, then it'll be redundant, and right now it present info in a very useful format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimosher (talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Imho we should take this AfD as our cue to start a discussion if situations such as this one couldn't elegantly be avoided if we adopted the competition article format of the German language Wikipedia. They use subpages (of the main article) instead of separate entries. These subpages (including the subpages for groups etc) are then given far more leeway regarding sources and typical article formatting. It would save us discussions like this one in the future and help streamline our overall coverage of events like the Euro, or the Olympics. --213.168.73.110 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, on the English Wikipedia, the subpage feature for Article(main)/File/Category/Mediawiki-spaces has been disabled since 2004. Subpages work on all other namespaces. Creating a page with a slash in mainspace creates a standalone article. See Wikipedia:Subpages. Nanonic (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, subpage creation has been disabled, so it can be re-enabled. Or are you one of those nay-sayers who oppose any change based on "it would be a change"? --78.35.244.186 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The schedule is already in the main article and the subarticle on the different groups. This article is really more news than encyclopedia. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a new argument. Would you care to elaborate? How is the page "news"? --78.35.244.186 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 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.