Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1902 LSU Tigers football team[edit]

a whole article for a single season of college football seems completely wasteful. These should be complied as a list perhaps, or maybe in the LSU Tigers football main article DesertSky85451 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated several other of the LSU season articles 1903 LSU Tigers football team, 1901 LSU Tigers football team, 1900 LSU Tigers football team, LSU Tigers football, 1893-1899, 2006 LSU Tigers football team, 2001 LSU Tigers football team, 2002 LSU Tigers football team, 2004 LSU Tigers football team, 2005 LSU Tigers football team, 2005 USC Trojans football team, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, 2005 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team

These college football related pages are managed by Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and meet the acceptable standard determined by the project managers. This user has only targeted one team, name the LSU Tigers, and ignored the fact that nearly every major Division I college football team has individual season pages on Wikipedia. These pages should not be deleted. Seancp 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated several other team articles for deletion. This is not an LSU bias, this is a desire to cleanup single- season, single- team articles DesertSky85451 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know not everyone is a college football fan, but a great many people use Wikipedia as a college football resource. The Wikipedia:WikiProject College football project has established standards for everything college football related, including standards for individual season pages (see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Yearly_team_pages_format. If you are hell bent on having this information removed from Wikipedia then why don't you target every team page? Here's a few just to get you started:

And that's just 2006....I don't have time to list all the rest of the years. Seancp 23:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Of course I want to assume good faith, but I wonder if the poster has read all (or any) of the articles they are nominating? For example, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team has 80 independent sources cited, which is far more than many featured articles. I suggest this nomination be summarily rejected. If the nominator beleives some seasons to not meet notability requirements, then I think it might be fruitfull for them to discuss the matter at the relevant wikiproject: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Johntex\^talk 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not nominating these articles because I think they are bad articles, or are poorly referenced, I'm nominating them because its silly to have a unique page for each season of each team for one sport for each school in Division 1. Any easy fix for this would be to merge them into one article for each team, with a different section for each season/year. If you all don't agree, then you're blind to your own bias, and life will go on. DesertSky85451 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is far too much content to merge. For example, the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team article is already at 55kb of well sourced information, and the season is not even half done. I won't use the phrase "blind to your own bias" as I think it is a bit rude, but I suggest DesertSky consider his own biases before making claims about anyone elses. Johntex\^talk 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the reason I took this to AfD is that User:Seancp deleted my proposed deletion tags where I had suggested a merger as a solution to what I saw as a problem of too many articles. DesertSky85451 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All Huge amount of information, terrible idea to delete it all. —Nate Scheffey 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Probable personal attack made as first ever edit from new account - deleted by admin] - Johntex\^talk 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Joey Hope- If you come back, I'll give you a blow job. DesertSky85451 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best. Response. Ever. Thanks for brightening my evening a bit with that comment, DesertSky. This is unrelated to the AfD, but (as an equal-rights-for-everybody heterosexual) anyone who is still homophobic in 2006 needs to get a damn clue. -- Kicking222 01:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is that time to revisit last year's previous discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results? What about articles like 2006 English cricket season, 2006-07 South African cricket season, and all of the other cricket regular season articles managed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket? How are they different? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just had to chime in here. This is insane to even be considering and I am not that big of a college football fan. It is encyclopeidic, think of a sports almanac. Keep all. A mcmurray 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all until broken into smaller AfD discussions. This is ridiculous, and a good portion of the articles nominated above are extremely obvious "keep" candidates, whether nominated by themselves or in a mass nomination. -- Kicking222 01:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, seems to be some sort of bad faith/WP:POINT nomination. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I am a member of the College Football WikiProject. College football has more average game attendance than all other sports in the world except the NFL. Failure to include information about College Football would not lend credibility to Wikipedia being a complete and useful encyclopedia. See List of sports attendance figures for attendance stats. College isn't "pro" so it's not listed in the same table, but if you put that 46,000+ average into the pro table, it's #2 in the world. Completely inappropriate AfD. --MECU≈talk 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - ~~This is stupid~~. Just because the guy does not consider the information that important to HIM doesn't mean it shouldn't be important to others. It definately does NOT meet the criteria set out for an deletable article in Wikipedia. It is both verifiable and notable in the sense that the information contained in these articles can be found in multiple outside sources. Notability should not be subjective to an individual editor. Secondly, these articles are part of an ongoing project, with dozens of participants. The person who nominated these articles is in essence putting an entire WikiProject on AfD. That is unreasonable.
Comment- While some may not agree that these pages should be deleted, I think it is very unfair to call this nomination stupid or bad faith. I believe DesertSky has a truly valid point, but perhaps just went a little too far with it. I'm not sure if every single season of every single college football team is encyclopedic, especially if it is not a notable season in some way (for example, the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team that Johntex mentioned is notable). Many such pages can probably be merged into larger articles. However, in the mean time, my recommendation is that we keep all these, have a long discussion about such things at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, and all have a nice cup of tea and a large serving of assume good faith. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology - OK. The use of the word "stupid" was inflamatory on my part. I make an unqualified apology for the use of that word. But that does not belie the fact that this AfD nomination is inappropriate. There may be a valid point that EVERY season is not necessarily worthy of an individual article, but likewise there is an equally valid point that SOME seasons ARE worthy of individual articles. Discussion of which seasons are notable or non-notable should be made within the scope of the relevent Wikiproject, and addressed in talk pages there. Simply marking an entire class of articles as prima fascia unworthy is unfair. If there is something SPECIFIC about a SPECIFIC season that makes it unworthy, than that SPECIFIC article should be AfD'ed. A 2-10 season may qualify for non-notable status (or it may not, especially if it happens to a normally excellent team.) But teams in contention for conference and/or national championships in any given year SHOULD be notable under even the most strict definitions. --Jayron32 04:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To my knowledge, no one from the WikiProject on college football has ever said that we need an article for every time for every season.

There are many teams, such as Baylor, Harvard and Duke that we have not even contemplated making individual season pages regarding. It is quite possilbe that some of these teams need only a team article, or that an article could cover a specific period of time for the program, like the tenure of a specific coach, for instance.

However, one of the articles up for deletion is LSU Tigers football, 1893-1899, so it seems the nominator is not content to merely nominate pages related to signle seasons. The WikiProject is just a few months old and already we have 27 participants who have established a system to help us focus on the articles that are likely to be of the greatest interest to the most people. I think the project should be given some space to continue to refine criteria and bring articles to a consistent standard of quality. I have already called for us to "Kep all", now I am wondering if this AfD be closed as a Speedy Keep. Johntex\^talk 04:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't need individual pages for every season of every team in every sport ever. Punkmorten 06:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll read the discussion, that's not what this is. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The blanket nomination of all these articles appears to be in conflict with WP:POINT. The article 2005 Texas Longhorn football team has been nominated for deletion in this grouping (afd points here). They were last year's national champions and certainly an article appropriate. How can this nomination, covering articles that are not even listed on this page, be in process? If an editor comes across this nomination from the main AFD page, it would appear that a vote to delete was only for the 1902 LSU team. At the very least, the nominator should list all of the articles considered under this nomination at the top of this afd section. — ERcheck (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - I also feel this mass AfD is completely misguided. If DesertSky (or anyone) wants to nominate a single season and give a specific reason for the nomination from the criteria, the folks at WP:CFB are going to give it a serious look. If you check the deletion logs and the AfD discussions, you'll see that we are pretty well self-policing and if you read the discussion on our project talk page you'll see that we are as commited to making Wikipedia a great repository of information as any other group of editors you'll find. Follow the links above, read our policy, then if you disagree with it, raise your concerns where they can be discussed in the open. z4ns4tsu\^talk 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - I've merged the LSU 1900-1903 pages into a page for tha 1900s decade, just as I did the 1890s, so those are just redirects. This user seems oblivious to the fact that these pages are part of a WikiProject and essentially have consensus approval already. This is a terrible, time-wating nomination, and possibly an abuse of deletion process. — Sampo Torgo ^[talk] @ 14:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - As part of the CFB WikiProject, I feel these pages contain valuable information that many college football fans can use. However, I also feel that no individual season page should exist if all it contains is the schedule and results. There should be more critical information on page that warrants the need for an entire article. If all that exists is the schedule, than a solution similar to the one employed by the Colorado Buffaloes football article should be used. I guess our WikiProject needs to set better guidelines on what warrants its own article. Given my own guideline, some team articles do need to go (such as 2005 USC Trojans football team and possible 2006 USC Trojans football team unless they are updated).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmajdan (talk • contribs) 07:26, 2006 October 9 (UTC)

Those two Trojans articles need major work. I have some (ahem) knowledge of the how the 2005 season turned out for them, and I think I know (ahem) where we can 'borrow' some relevant content for that article. The 2006 article clearly is an important article that needs major work. They are undefeated and ranked 2nd in the nation. Our article on their current season is a dissapointment in its current form, to put it mildly. Johntex\^talk 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW AfD per ERcheck's comment regarding WP:POINT. I never meant for this information to be deleted, all I wanted was a discussion about a possible merger to prevent what I saw as the distinct possibility of this all going way overboard, with an article for every season of basketball, football etc. for every D1 school nationwide. DesertSky85451 16:10, 9 October 2006 (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.