Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1882 Hamline Pipers 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 delete. Not verifiable. That'senough reason to delete withotu considering broader issues at this point  DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

1882 Hamline Pipers football team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, no sources found that go beyond the season existed - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 03:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep. This is part of a family of articles under 1882 college football season. Whether they all should be kept as part of a "[year] [college] football team" article tree for all college football seasons is something that probably should be discussed, but sniping one article when the rest aren't is something that really should be avoided. So this should be closed and a discussion started at the relevant WikiProject about the desire, or lack thereof, for this entire family of articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that AfDing one by one is not ideal. A discussion at the WikiProject College football would be great. I would like to see some basic guidelines for notabililty be applied to new article creation. Note that the project has a drive to create season articles for every season for every major college football team. WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign If there is significant coverage in RS, great, create away. But the 1882 Hamline article is an example of what should not be created. Since it was the first season the team played, it should be merged into Hamline Pipers football. In fact, in most cases, merging the stub into a season article or the team's general page would be best. But there will still be some on-the-fence articles that need to be discussed whether they stay as stand-alone articles on their own merits. So I hope someone at the project would start this discussion. They have done great work, I just think some have been overzealous to create new articles that aren't notable. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 23:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I have nominated Template:Hamline Pipers football navbox for deletion as well. There is certainly no reason to create templates for teams that have zero likelihood of any individual season articles written. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 23:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with Hamline Pipers football (or Hamline University). Hamline is a small liberal arts college. This is the first season article created for a Hamline football team. I am unable to find coverage that would support this article.  I think the best suggestion at present would be to merge the very limited content here into the parent article which is itself very sparse. Cbl62 (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Merge and redirect to Hamline Pipers football. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 02:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One other significant point: According to the source cited in the article, the Hamline team in 1882 played association football, i.e., soccer rather than American football. Thus, the article's assertion that the team represented the school in the 1882 college football season (i.e., American football) appears to be incorrect. Cbl62 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - There literally is no content. "A Honey jar is a jar that holds honey." That's about where we are with this piece. I don't know whether a two game season by an obscure college was covered in the press either. Doubtful. Carrite (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:TRIVCOV. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no deadline. Top level program in the sport at the time, we typically keep single-season articles for such programs and I see no reason to make an exception here.  let it bloom.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two issues with your comments. First, what leads you to say that Hamline was a top level program in the sport at the time? According to the main Hamline article, the school had a total of 113 students in the fall of 1880, an enrollment smaller than most urban high schools and hardly an indicator of a top level program. Second and perhaps more important, the source cited in the 1882 season article (here) shows that Hamline wasn't even playing American football in 1882, but rather "association football", i.e., soccer. Accordingly, if this article were to be kept, shouldn't it be renamed "1882 Hamline Pipers soccer team" or "1882 Hamline Pipers association football team"?  Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the NCAA didn't even exist yet, and professional football didn't exist either. But perhaps I'm confused... is this a gridiron football team or another style?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true that the NCAA did not exist in 1882, but that doesn't make a team representing a small school with 113 students "a top level program." As for your query, and per the only source provided in the article (see here), Hamline played association football (i.e., soccer) in 1882, not gridiron football. Cbl62 (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge (or delete) -- I would have expected college sport to be at the NN level, certainly not deserving seasonal articles: If we have this sort of thing at all, it should be limited to major universities, and probably only to an era when games were often televised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the first part, expecting college sport (particularly Collegiate football) to be non-notable is something I have a hard time comprehending, on the middle, it seems like that would be a good way to weight our coverage, and on the last, pretty much the definition of WP:RECENTISM. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with article on Hamline Pipers. This article has a sub-section on sporting life at Hamline Pipers, which is currently on the men's basketball team, and the article on Hamline Pipers' football team could be merged with the article. Vorbee (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Many apologies - I should have typed Hamline University. Vorbee (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by proposer. I can't believe noone has cited this and/or I didn't look it up before this. WP:NSEASONS is the standard for notability of sports seasons. Since it say "A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable" (emphasis in original), I would say that argues very strongly that the 1882 season of the Hamline Pipers is not notable. I'm increasingly favoring deleting 1882 plus a merge and redirect of Hamline Pipers football to Hamline Pipers. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete all of these 1800s football season articles are excessive detail in my opinion and should be merged to a topic more reasonable for an encyclopedia article. However, on this one, the only reference says that it is an "association game of foot-ball" team, more akin to soccer; and there's no other content.  This is not verifiable in its present form and is likely not a notable topic. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hamline Pipers football or another relevant article. This topic definitely does not warrant its own article. EMachine03 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Normally, I would say WP:ATD argues for a merge somwehere, but there's no content in the current article to merge.  So, delete, with no prejudice against adding information about this to some appropriate article when it becomes available, but unless something drastic changes, I can't see this ever being a stand-alone article.    -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2017 (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.