If you have not already done so, please click here and add ((Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Colombian Professional Football 2000)) at the top of the box. Thank you. Click here to return to the main RfD page.

Colombian Professional Football 2000 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Along with the following other seasons:

01941-0 | 01942-0 | 01943-0 | 01944-0 | 01945-0 | 01946-0 | 01947-0 | 01948-0 | 01949-0 | 01950-0
01951-0 | 01952-0 | 01953-0 | 01954-0 | 01955-0 | 01956-0 | 01957-0 | 01958-0 | 01959-0 | 01960-0
01961-0 | 01962-0 | 01963-0 | 01964-0 | 01965-0 | 01966-0 | 01967-0 | 01968-0 | 01969-0 | 01970-0
01971-0 | 01972-0 | 01973-0 | 01974-0 | 01975-0 | 01976-0 | 01977-0 | 01978-0 | 01979-0 | 01980-0
01981-0 | 01982-0 | 01983-0 | 01984-0 | 01985-0 | 01986-0 | 01987-0 | 01988-0 | 01989-0 | 01990-0
01991-0 | 01992-0 | 01993-0 | 01994-0 | 01995-0 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 01998-0 | 01999-0 |

Malinaccier (talk) (review) has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

The subject of a single season of football is not notable enough to have its own article. This also violates WP:NOT which states "Simple English Wikipedia is not another English Wikipedia. The regular English Wikipedia is a large gathering of knowledge about many subjects. The pages there are for people who read English very well. Simple English is not the right place to put the same articles again. Instead, we write about the most common subjects so that people from every language can read the pages easily." Malinaccier (talk) (review) 22

59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

• Comment If we delete this article, we're going to have a lot of others to delete as well. It seems like every sixth or seventh article I hit with "Show any page" is a soccer season article. I don't really have a stance either way right now on these articles, but I just want to point out that this will be a big precedent. Either way (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that this will create a large precedent (and perhaps a large workload for administrators), but WP:NOT is clear that only articles about the most common subjects are to be kept on Wikipedia, and I do not think that these articles are common and notable enough for inclusion on the Simple English Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to !vote as I've not been here long enough, and I know "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is no argument. But I must point out each of these articles contains more information than the 492,123,435,232 Romanian river stubs Razorflame has created. I'm not entirely sure why nobody has jumped on those stubs and raised questions. Soup Dish (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can tell you that the reason why nobody has jumped on them yet is because they have been kept on the English Wikipedia for over a year. An article has to be notable in order to stay on the English Wikipedia for that long of a period in time. Razorflame 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • May I point in you in the direction of Malinaccier's nomination, in bold, at the top of this page for why that argument doesn't really work. Perhaps Simple needs some form of reboot? Soup Dish (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a big difference between geographical locations (which, in my opinion, every wiki should have) and every sport season filled with templates (that aren't on other wikis). I'd also like to remind everyone that all of these pages qualify for quick deletion. Synergy 12:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Building off of this question that Soup Dish has, how about the asteroid stubs? Does every piece of rock in the sky really need twenty words about it on Simple? Either way (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Merge as per Malinaccier. While I do agree that these pages are not common enough to be kept on this Wikipedia, they are somewhat notable in themselves, and in a list form, they would be even more notable. Razorflame 22:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Merge - All of the articles are created by the same user, which explains the monotony of the articles. Though they are not notable to have one article per season, it could be possible to merge all of them into one article (but no endless tables please!) Chenzw  Talk  03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to where? I haven't seen this mentioned yet, and since I'm staying out of the voting process, I or another admin would need to know where all of these templates are supposed to go. Synergy 12:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Templates? They are not templates. I think merging into Colombian Professional Football will do. (omg the articles must be too monotonous!)--Chenzw  Talk  11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I met "wikitable's". Boxes of info. Synergy 20:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The season of an entire league is notable at the professional level. -Djsasso (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It surely is notable on the main English Wikipedia, but is it one of the "most common subjects" (WP:NOT)? Malinaccier (talk) (review) 02:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Soccer for a non-english speaking person? I would definately say so. There a quite a few articles on topics of this type, hundreds of wrestling topics, F1 racing etc. Just because this is a professional league in Columbia doesn't mean we should delete it cause its of less interest in an area where you or I might be. -Djsasso (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Merge - I see no reason the exact position and record for each team for each year needs kept separately. If any of the teams have pages, their seasonal records should be kept there and do not need to be supported here as well. Overall (and in answer to where to merge to) the "important" data should be merged, ie. champions and possibly relegations (with final records of both a possibility) - 1954 Champion: Team A (23-13-2) Relegations: Team F (1-37-0) and Team U (3-34-1) (but in table format). These should be combined into a single table either on the main league page or if size is an issue, a separate list for league statistics. --Creol(talk) 06:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Merge I think that the subject is indeed notable, but I think that one big article would do the job better. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - As I think they do not vio WP:NOT and are notable enough to be kept separate.-- CM16 ^M_LB  08:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge A list form is prefered. NonvocalScream (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - A conclusion not to delete the articles of the season of the football was already given. (see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Division 1 1972-73) Don't you respect the conclusion that was already given? --Nameless User (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close seven days after it was filed; that is on approx. Tuesday, 6 January 2009 at 10:59 pm, although it may be closed quicker due to this.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. Single season articles to be accumulated into bigger ones, for example, decades; Single seasons can get redirects to the respective accumulated article; also to clearly be identified as list--Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]