- 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 delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although the situation that led to Liverpool still having to qualify for the 2005–06 Champions League despite being the reigning champions is fairly interesting, the encyclopaedic value of this article is very niche and would probably be considered WP:FANCRUFT. The entire situation could be adequately described in a couple of sentences at 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season and 2005–06 UEFA Champions League and doesn't require an in-depth study of how UEFA modified its qualification rules to manage circumstances like this. – Pee Jay 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete worth a couple of lines of text in the 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season article (and maybe one of the Everton articles, as they lost out because of it), but not worthy of an independent article about it. The rule changes should be mentioned (if not already) in the relevant Champion's League articles. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 09:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep.
- Quote from the aforementioned
WP:FANCRUFT:
- It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, unreferenced, or contain original research. These issues may contribute to deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.
- The article sources are not fansites but multiple British national newspapers over a period of months, which I believe satisfy WP:GNG. (IMO many of Category:FL-Class football articles are much closer to fancruft, but I won't poke that hornet's nest...)
- A benefit of having a standalone article is that it is cleaner to link to it from all relevant articles, rather than picking one of them ( 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season or 2005–06 UEFA Champions League or ...??), adding a section or anchor with details, and linking from all the others.
- For those who don't want the gory details, a well-written lede will suffice. So by all means improve that instead of deleting the whole thing.
- Sources don't have to be from fansites for content to be considered fancruft. – Pee Jay 10:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Quote from the aforementioned
WP:FANCRUFT:
- Delete Agree with the nom, this could be mentioned in the relevant Liverpool and Champions League season articles. Doesn't need its own entry. NapHit ( talk) 10:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delte per NapHit. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 20:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 21:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete & merge content into the relevant article(s). I disagree with the view of this being Fancruft, but I think it falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS. Errant ( chat!) 10:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - this merits a couple of sentences in the pertinent articles, not an article in its own right -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 18:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although the situation that led to Liverpool still having to qualify for the 2005–06 Champions League despite being the reigning champions is fairly interesting, the encyclopaedic value of this article is very niche and would probably be considered WP:FANCRUFT. The entire situation could be adequately described in a couple of sentences at 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season and 2005–06 UEFA Champions League and doesn't require an in-depth study of how UEFA modified its qualification rules to manage circumstances like this. – Pee Jay 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete worth a couple of lines of text in the 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season article (and maybe one of the Everton articles, as they lost out because of it), but not worthy of an independent article about it. The rule changes should be mentioned (if not already) in the relevant Champion's League articles. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 09:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep.
- Quote from the aforementioned
WP:FANCRUFT:
- It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, unreferenced, or contain original research. These issues may contribute to deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.
- The article sources are not fansites but multiple British national newspapers over a period of months, which I believe satisfy WP:GNG. (IMO many of Category:FL-Class football articles are much closer to fancruft, but I won't poke that hornet's nest...)
- A benefit of having a standalone article is that it is cleaner to link to it from all relevant articles, rather than picking one of them ( 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season or 2005–06 UEFA Champions League or ...??), adding a section or anchor with details, and linking from all the others.
- For those who don't want the gory details, a well-written lede will suffice. So by all means improve that instead of deleting the whole thing.
- Sources don't have to be from fansites for content to be considered fancruft. – Pee Jay 10:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Quote from the aforementioned
WP:FANCRUFT:
- Delete Agree with the nom, this could be mentioned in the relevant Liverpool and Champions League season articles. Doesn't need its own entry. NapHit ( talk) 10:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delte per NapHit. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 20:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 21:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete & merge content into the relevant article(s). I disagree with the view of this being Fancruft, but I think it falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS. Errant ( chat!) 10:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - this merits a couple of sentences in the pertinent articles, not an article in its own right -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 18:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.