Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish First Football League 2000-01

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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish First Football League 2000-01

Not sure what this is. Looks like an indiscrimate list so violates WP:ISNOT. It is also not in English. Nv8200p talk 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 per nom. Shalom ^Hello 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would think that a seasonal article for a higher ranking league would be notable, but this completely lacks context. Resolute 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Added tags Corpx 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it look like Turkish First Football League 2002-03. Deleting this article is a very lazy solution to a very simple problem: 5 minutes of editing will make it a perfectly decent stub article. Note that I've removed the speedy deletion tag: just looking at "what links here" is enough to get you all the context you need. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. Its state should not be a reason to delete it. It should be cleaned up, not just put out of the way. Mattythewhite 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be improved to a similar standard of other Turkish league articles. --Dave101→talk 08:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with the above, it should be changed to be similar to the other consecutive seasons for this league. Deleting it would make a complete mess of Turkish league articles, when all it takes is a clean up. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have redone it in the style of the other article (although I haven't added European qualification as I'm not sure who did what) and it is now a passable stub that can be built upon. Unless somebody is proposing deleting every individual season then I suggest this debate should now be closed. Keresaspa 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" and all the others in a similar style should be deleted as they are not articles but a table of some kind of data that makes no sense to someone not familar with the topic as the letters across the top of the chart have no context. -Nv8200p talk 14:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case nominate the rest of them and the discussion can be redirected towards your above argument. In itself it is not enough of a reason to delete this one on its own. Keresaspa 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also although the letters make no sense to those not familiar with football that could easliy be rectified by including a key. Whether or not that is necessary is debatable as I don't see why a non-football fan would even be checking the page in the first place. If I go to a random page like say 9-j symbol my ears would probably bleed trying to figure it out but I accept that there are people who deal in this sort of thing and can make perfect sense of all the palaver going on there. A lot of Wikipedia can be said to make no sense to someone not familar with the topic - if we started deleting on that basis there would be very little left. Keresaspa 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleaned up version. Expansion can easily be done by those with knowledge of the Turkish league. Resolute 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still fails WP:ISNOT. This is not an article or a stub of an article. It is nothing but a list of statistics. -Nv8200p talk 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A need for expansion does not equate a need to delete. Resolute 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless somebody adds recaps to go along with the article, these should all be deleted or maybe merged into one. Corpx 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passable stub with plenty of information available in order to expand the article. Davewild 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should have used {{prod}} instead. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:28, 28 June 2007 (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.