If you have not already done so, please click here and add ((Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Division 1 1972-73)) at the top of the box. Thank you. Click here to return to the main RfD page.

Division 1 1972-73 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

- tholly ^--Talk-- has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

One of several pages with no cats, info, and only redlinks

• Division 1

and some of:

• Ligue 1

Effectively, most of the links in ((Ligue 1 seasons)).

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.

• I am the user who made these articles. Because I improve them, I want you to wait.--Nameless User (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How long would you need, and how would you improve them? :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 10:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The redlink will likely get taken care of eventually once the teams are created. The categories I am in the process of adding once I find them all.. some are ((uncat)), some are Special:uncategorizedpages and others are Category:Deletion requests so its a matter of hunting them down and getting them sorted by league. Wide range with Ligue 1, FAI Premier Division, Colombian Professional Football and the English Premier League, but sorting is not terribly difficult. The pages are not terribly usefull, but they are not less useful than a host of other similar articles and they actually do provide some information that people could find a need for. No real reason here to delete them.-- Creol(talk) 06:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose deletion, if you delete these you'll have to delete maybe 50% of the articles here on simple for the same reason JurgenG (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think these articles breach WP:NOT numbers 13 and 14:

13 = Wikipedia is not Mere collections of internal links.

14 = Wikipedia is not Mere collections of public domain or other source material.

I would like to understand the overall intention for improving them. I appreciate Creol's point that there might be some information people actually find useful, but if it is information that they can find elsewhere (and possibly with more authority - note no references are provided!) then I don't think they should be here. I do not think that other stuff exists is an argument for keeping these or any other articles. --Matilda (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that information can be found elsewhere can never be a reason to delete it here, can it? Because everything that is on wikipedia can be found elsewhere. JurgenG (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies of no original research and verifiability demand that the information exists elsewhere. The material in these "articles" though seems to me to be mere collections of results - they are not articles. This mere collection of results is I believe easily sourced elsewhere and so that is why to me this series of articles is different. It maybe however that there is an intention to develop them - in which case I reserve judgement. regards --Matilda (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - no references are provided - how do we know that the information is accurate? Wikipedia:Citing sources might only be a guideline but it is a key component supporting Wikipedia:Verifiability which is policy. --Matilda (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a user good at English. If there is a mistake in the grammar, I am sorry.

About the contents of these articles, I do not think that these articles are substantial. However, there are a lot of articles of a level same as these in Wikipedia of many foreign languages. I made many articles in English Wikipedia as Nameless User. There is not the deleted article. Even such an argument does not happen. In other words it is clear that these articles are accepted globally.

About verifiability, there are already these articles in plural Wikipedia of foreign language. About these articles, has the accuracy of these articles been doubted? Have these articles been deleted for such a reason? I think that it is the evidence that enough inspection is already performed.

The claim of Matilda is clearly irrational. There is not the reason to delete only articles of Simple English Wikipedia in such situation. --Nameless User (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close seven days after it was filed; that is on approx. Saturday, 4 October 2008 at 11:08 am, although it may be closed quicker due to this.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep.