Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1889 Wake Forest Baptists 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 keep. Given the suggestion of merging individual seasons into one article, a discussion on this could start on the article talk page or an appropriate WikiProject talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

1889 Wake Forest Baptists football team

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Insignificant WP:PERMASTUB on a minor football team. The season (literally a list of stats) doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. SWinxy (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. SWinxy (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a major college football team and significant coverage exists as evidenced by added sourcing. Nominator did not perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did actually do a BEFORE search, but there was nothing I could even find. I'm honestly not sure how or where you discovered additional ones, but searching for sources is something I absolutely do before nominations.
 * As for significant coverage, the ones that have been added, the article fails since these sources don't address the topic directly (WP:SIGCOV). Rather, they are pretty routine and trivial "hey this is what is happening this weekend" type or an extreme level of detail that don't have lasting impact (from WP:SBST: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage). SWinxy (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge. Wake Forest is a notable program, and its history should be appropriately covered. Prior to 1908, the program played irregularly -- a grand total of 17 games from 1888 to 1907, including one-game "seasons" in 1891 (1891 Wake Forest Baptists football team) and 1895 (1895 Wake Forest Baptists football team). Also, the coverage presented so far on the 1889 season is not super deep. It seems to me that the best way of dealing with this early period is to merge the six existing stub articles into a single article that can more cohesively tell the early history of the program (hopefully including some coverage of why the school didn't field teams in 1890, 1894, and for more than a decade starting in 1896). We have recently used a similar approach for other programs in their early/formative years. E.g., Kent State football (1920–1929) and Swarthmore football, 1878–1887. Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea--there isn't much to have induvial articles on, but a larger and more comprehensive one might be better. Though, er, side note, Kent State has a bunch of duped content on its page with a bunch of stubs (found in the navbox). SWinxy (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, it appears that somebody reversed the redirects for Kent State. Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I forgot to say this before, but notability is not inherited by the notability of the WFB football team--it's gotta be notable on its own. SWinxy (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Today this team is a major team as they are now in the ACC, a Power 5 conference, and if somebody wants to see what Wake Forest did in the 1800's on football, they can see how they did. Sportsfangnome (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep the coverage and sources in the article seem to pass WP:GNG. WP:PERMASTUB is not a reason to delete, stub articles are okay, we should not confuse stub-status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm quite against the existence of permastub-type articles on Wikipedia, but the nominator clearly did not do a WP:BEFORE search as this is a notable topic. — VersaceSpace  🌃 03:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: or as ATD Merge a bunch together (many multiple years of the same team) starting here as a solution to a multiple indiscriminate collection of stats. I assume this is the same team as 1891 Wake Forest Baptists football team, 1892 Wake Forest Baptists football team, 1893 Wake Forest Baptists football team, 1895 Wake Forest Baptists football team, 1908 Wake Forest Baptists football team, etc..., etc...  --  Otr500 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment sometimes multiple seasons are merged together as an editing choice and I wouldn't be against that. But the articles are most certainly WP:DISCRIMINATE and not WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG as an NCAA Division I FBS football team season, per all above and the sources currently in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the topic is notable and passes WP:GNG. I'd be open to a merge, as per Cbl62's suggestion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Discussion was closed by an IP with only one other edit, and using a deceptive signature. Close was a bit premature, and having also undone a similarly suspicious IP AfD close from a different IP (here--compare IP's close here with this diff over there), I reverted the close per WP:BADNAC. (non-admin unclose) --Finngall talk  17:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Finngall. That was weird. SWinxy (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (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.