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, default to keep. As pointed out below it is perhaps best to discuss this article along with similar titles. There clearly was not a consensus to delete here, but perhaps alternative article structures can be worked out via merges and/or redirects. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden national football team 1994 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

We really do need prose in articles - that's a fundamental principle. We're not a directory. We have articles on particular teams' seasons, but it sets a bad precedent allowing mere rosters as stand-alone articles. Oh, and if someone could prevail upon User:Darius Dhlomo to stop pumping out this stuff, that too would be nice. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that this type of article should include some narrative, and hopefully Mr. Dhlomo will improve his writing style. Nevertheless, Wikipedia sets a really low bar for sports articles and this would easily pass. Even were that not so, a season that ends with being in the World Cup semifinals would be notable in anybody's book. Mandsford (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Yes, we set a very low bar for sports articles - and that's a problem, isn't it? It seems odd that we set rather high standards for, say, academics but such low ones for sports, allowing unrestricted floods of trivia like this. Regardless, we're not here to reform those policies just yet; I still contend some sort of narrative is a fundamental requirement in articles. 2) There are some 30 articles about the cup in Category:1994 FIFA World Cup. Surely Sweden's performance there can be woven into that narrative? (It is, in any case.) And what about, say, Sweden national football team 1995, when no World Cup was held? Do we really want to keep around roster after roster, with zero regard for quality? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you totally, Biru, and I didn't vote to keep. Wikipedia just happens to be topheavy on sports and TV shows. It's kind of sad that a brain surgeon can't be presumed notable unless he played pro baseball, while a jock gets a free pass, but that's the way it is around here. Mandsford (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject is clearly notable. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Rlendog (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clearly notable" because the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or "clearly notable" because you think it is? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic have obviously received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it was a world cup year and Sweden finnished third, I would be pretty sure that meant significant coverage. --Stefan ^talk 01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There comes a time when one has to distinguish between a topic created by a user from elements which did receive coverage and a topic that is instantly recognizable. In the case where the topic is already covered by several wikipedia articles, this shouldn't be too hard. Dahn (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you mean that you want to merge and redirect, not delete? I might agree with that, but not delete. --Stefan ^talk 05:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Technically, yes, but in this case I see no difference between the two: unless we assume that a reader will search for the exact concept of "Sweden national football team 1994" before even checking the articles on the 1994 season or the national team, and will expect the info to be present under that exact title, there is no stringent reason for the name(s) to be preserved as redirects. But, sure, this is not an either/or matter between delete, merge and redirect. Dahn (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that the 1994 Swedish national football team did not receive significant independent coverage in reliable sources, including Swedish sources? Rlendog (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:BURDEN (an official policy) - "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The burden of evidence is on you to demonstrate notability through reliable, third-party sources. Those arguing for deletion are under to obligation to believe unproven claims that "sources must exist". - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BEFORE. Google provides over 90,000 hits, although I am certainly not suggesting that all are reliable. But are you really suggesting that a national football team managed to finish in 3rd place at the World Cup without generating any reliable, third party coverage? Rlendog (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since you quoted from an official policy, I guess I should too. Per Wikipedia's official deletion policy (which is what we are discussing here): "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." If you want to tell me that a good faith attempt (per WP:BEFORE, for example) to find reliable sources about the 1994 3rd place World Cup team failed to find any, I will search myself, and if I cannot find any, will change my !vote to delete. But until then, I do not see that WP:COMMONSENSE contradicts WP:BURDEN, and don't see a need to waste my time to "prove" that such sources exist. Rlendog (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated before, bad article does not qualify to delete only to improve it, notable subject means keep, the subject is clearly notable. --Stefan ^talk 01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Highly redundant, utterly superfluous, way overfocused, whimsical and unencyclopedic fancruft. Whatever is encyclopedic about the subject is already covered elsewhere. This is not an issue of "improve the article", it is an issue of "this article serves no purpose". Ditto for others in the series - I would support a vote on more than one or, hell, all of them. Dahn (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move relevant data to Sweden at the 1994 FIFA World Cup, delete rest - The only thing of note in this article is Sweden's 1994 FIFA World Cup campaign. Therefore, I believe that the relevant data should be used to create an article about Sweden at the 1994 FIFA World Cup, and the rest should be deleted. – PeeJay 23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - is a good article, and is notable by its coverage of the year's progress of a significant national football team. I don't think that just because it's a World Cup year it should stay - the other years in the series should all stay as well. Eldumpo (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't work that way: phenomena are notable when recorded and given weight by independent sources; they do not become notable when recorded in a Wikipedia directory (I hesitate to label this an "article") encompassing what you find to be "significant". And no, it's not a "good article" - see WP:FA, WP:FL or even WP:GA for what some of those might look like. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 22:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Was, I'm sure, and should be covered by 1994 in Swedish football. No need for a separate article, which is just a list of fixtures. –  LATICS  talk  06:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect back to the section 1994 in Swedish football#National team results from which it was copied. The 1994 in Swedish football article is not so big that it can't cope with the re-inclusion of a list of the national team's results, which is all this article consists of. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is notable; no problems in finding tons of newspaper articles, sports year book mentions and so on. That said, I could very well see another article structure (which could involve fewer articles) being better than the current one to cover the same material. However, discussing in isolation deleting or redirecting one article in the middle of a chronological series of 18 in Category:Sweden national football team results seems a little strange to me. Tomas e (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find this article interesting. I understand wikipedia is not a database, but matches of this importance should still be easily available for the public. Olaversterk (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Do see WP:INTERESTING - we don't keep articles based on what you find interesting (or delete what I find uninteresting). 2) Once again, the logical fallacy that Wikipedia is the Internet. It's not - it's merely part of it. "The public" still has all the easy availability it wants right here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is scope to merge and/or expand. But no scope for deletion. The Swedish national football team - and it's history - is pretty obviously a notable topic for an article. Setwisohi (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice sleight of hand, but this "article" is neither about the "Swedish national football team" nor about "it's [sic] history" - it's about the "Sweden national football team 1994". Produce multiple, reliable, independent sources covering that topic in depth, and you may have a case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, this article is just a list of results from that year. --Jimbo^[online] 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jimbo, according to your own user page you are "currently working on a back log of Football League players from 1996 onwards, who played for Brentford, Fulham and Southend United". A laudable task. But surely, if Wikipedia is not a sports almanac you might be wasting your efforts... Setwisohi (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment creating articles for notable footballers who pass WP:ATHLETE and WP:N is different to just listing fixtures and results of a particular team. --Jimbo^[online] 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is notable (there is probably adequate Swedish sports press coverage from 1994 about it), and the article now has a prose lead. In addition, per WP:5P, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", so having sports almanac content is not a problem per se.  Sandstein  06:35, 1 July 2009 (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.