Talk:FC Tokyo Competitions Record

speedy?[edit]

The speedy nomination says this was deleted previously; but, it was only deleted due to "little or not context", and was speedily deleted. Context is provided at the top of the page now, and G4 says This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy. Neier 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original nominator of the page for deletion, I completely agree. I am removing the speedy delete tag, possible bad faith nomination. I will contact the editor who placed it there. J Milburn 10:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logs state it was deleted (16:03, 14 January 2007) then recreated ( 16:45, 14 January 2007). Reason given was little or no content. This article currently contains minimal encyclopedic content [1], appearing to be a recreation of F.C. Tokyo#J._League. A valid WP:CSD#A1 deletion.--Hu12 14:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. "limited context" was the reason for the deletion. And, as CSD:A1 states Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context. Context has been added and expanded upon since the original article. The original article simply listed the tables without saying what they were for, and that is a good example of a lack of context. This current article has context, and is not a CSD#A1 candidate. Neier 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole statement applies, not the fractured quote above. CSD#A1 states Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub. Having text is one thing, having a valid stub that can be expanded into an article is quite another. Even if the duplicated content was removed, what little content left cannot be properly expanded to become an article. "Other domestic competitions" (Emperor's Cup and J. League Cup) season results are WP:NOT expandable, and should be included/merged in the F.C. Tokyo main article.--Hu12 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At which point does a team's history become so overwhelming to an article that it should be moved to a separate page? Obviously, you feel like the number is more than 8; but, what do you think about 45 (Houston Astros Record-by-Year), 87 (Chicago Bears seasons), or 100 (Chelsea F.C. seasons)? I don't see any reason to prescribe an arbitrary dividing point anywhere, and feel that the list as-is can stand on its own. Neier 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style states an article should be split when the article reaches 50kb or more. Hence, Houston Astros (51kb) split--> Houston Astros Record-by-Year, Chicago Bears (54kb) split--> Chicago Bears seasons and Chelsea F.C. (50kb) split--> Chelsea F.C. seasons . With that said, F.C. Tokyo is less than 9kb, remove the duplicated table on FC Tokyo Competitions Record and at most it cannot be more 1kb. The guideline clearly suggest to combine articles 1kb into a related page, which would be F.C. Tokyo .--Hu12 05:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article size guideline. With that in mind, a merge of the cup info to the main article is much more acceptable than a speedy delete. Neier 07:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~By the way, is there an easy way to tell an article's size (above a certain size, the edit pane warns you, but I'm wondering if there is a better way). Neier 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)~~ answer is supplied in the above link to MoS.[reply]

Ok then, could a more frequent editor of the pages in question (I am yet to actually check what they are about) merge the articles, and make this into a redirect then please? J Milburn 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]