Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Germany national rugby union team results

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germany national rugby union team results

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for listing every single result of sporting teams. Espnscrum.com does that for rugby. Also nominating

List of Australia national rugby union team test match results
List of German Democratic Republic national rugby union team results LibStar (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I don't like the listing of the results for Australia (a tier 1 IRB nation with a big following in Australia) with Germany (which is tier 3, and has no Rugby World Cup experience). Germany as an international side are not very good; their biggest competition for many years was the team from British Forces Germany. The standard drops dramatically outside the top teams because certain countries don't have rugby traditions. Also, while a lucky, plucky and determined team sneak a 1-0 result in association football, rugby has many more opportunities for scoring, and is both physically and technically demanding. Germany would probably lose every time to the Australian domestic sides in the Super 14. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't find any policy that forbids or discourages such lists. The fact that the information in the lists is already available somewhere else outside Wikipedia is not a hinderance. If it wasn't, the list would be original research after all, and that is not allowed. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so we should put all international football, basketball, hockey, cricket, swimming, ice skating and volleyball results on WP as well? LibStar (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the three above listed articles, not football, basketball, hockey, cricket, swimming, ice skating and volleyball results. If you want to support your deletion request, please do so by quoting policy, not by saying article x is not notable, therefore article y isn't either. Don't stray from the subject! Your argument is the invertion of User:LibStar#Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, to quote yourself, here's a few more extremely weak and lazy arguments I've encountered to support deletion. Calistemon (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a relevant question, WP could list lots of things mentioned elsewhere and not be original research , and I think that's a weak argument for inclusion. The question is this list encyclopaedic or do you prefer to use your reasoning and expand WP to include to all international sporting results? Yes or no. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a relevant question, as it is entirely case based. In the case of the three above articles, I support to keep them as I consider them

a similar article on a similar subject exists or doesn't exist and therefore this article should be kept or deleted is invalid. Notability is what matters, I would say. Calistemon (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

comment I refer all keep voters to WP:NSEASONS. whilst major team season articles may be notable, this guideline clearly states WP is not a stats directory. These articles clearly are just stats directory. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does
  WP:SIZE), so what is the problem? -- Shudde ^talk 08:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As per Calistemon. See no reason this list is unencyclopaedic. I hope this nom doesn't exist to try and make a
point. - Shudde ^talk 22:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, Since a policy has not been cited in the rationale for listing, I see no reason to delete because a reason to delete has not been given. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very fascinating, the fact that informations also exists somewhere else like rugbydata and
espnscrum is not a valid reason to have these deleted....in previous years we refused to make 'statistical articles' because it was available on some other site only for those sites to be deleted and the information lost (not cached by google or archive) forever, I'm happy someone started this, wish they would create for other major nations as well especially all the Tier 1 teams and atleast the Top tier 2 teams..--Stemoc (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - would like to see more pages like this. 23:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per all of the above and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sri Lanka national rugby union team results, I reiterate, I fail to see the logic behind this nomination.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (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.