Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1919 Colorado Silver and Gold 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

1919 Colorado Silver and Gold football team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another range of football team pages, which run to dozens of simple article, almost exactly the same. Seeking merge into single table to reduce New Pages Feed backlog of which this makeup many redundant pages. scope_creep (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, part of a long-standing campaign by the college football WikiProject to have articles for every season for all major college football programs. Lizard  (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete If the creator(s) can't/don't want to put effort into the articles, then they don't need to be creating them. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 02:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment @User:Lizard the Wizard Why? What is the point? The information would still be persevered when it is in a table. The methodology they have created to have a page per year is completely irrational. It involves a huge amount of time to review pages in the New Page Feed, plodding through them at a time, checking it,ticking it off, next one, plod,  when the diff between them is some years run to only a few bytes of data of difference. I suspect that probably between 10 and 20% of the New Page Feed backlog is probably articles like this. It would be better to put merge them into lots of 10 into decades. That would cut the work down drastically, with no loss of knowledge.  scope_creep (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure; I wasn't around when the campaign started, and I'm not much involved in it. All I know is that it's understood that eventually there will be an article for every season of every major college program, so nominating one for deletion is futile (and has been in the past). Lizard  (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep College football in the US, including the history of its major teams (of which Colorado, a power conference team and one-time national champion, is certainly one), is an incredibly well-covered sport, and there will be plenty of documentation on individual seasons of major teams. While the article is short and could use improvement, deletion is not cleanup. I'm especially dismayed by the suggestion that we delete these to reduce the new page patrol backlog; if one's solution to an influx of new articles and content on a topic is to delete the articles just to make the backlog smaller, one has no business patrolling new pages. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Season articles for major teams generate sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. IMO there ought to be a presumption of notability for seasons involving a Power 5 Conference team. Colorado is such a major team with membership in a Power 5 Conference, 26 conference titles, a national championship and a Heisman Trophy winner. Moreover, the essential elements of a football season simply cannot be "persevered" (or "preserved" either for that matter) with a single line in a chart.  BTW I have expanded the article a bit. Cbl62 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasoning and efforts of Cbl62 and also because, as TheCatalyst31 noted, deletion is not cleanup. Lepricavark (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but this shit will keep happening as long as y'all don't add some substance and schedules to differentiate them.- Well I put the whole thing in bold to make my point.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep generally we find that season articles for Division I FBS programs generate more than enough press to surpass WP:GNG (even historical articles). I see no reason to make an exception here.  Granted, it needs more substance in the article but that is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.  There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl62, TheCatalyst31, and Paulmcdonald's reasoning and arguments as an NCAA D-I FBS team historical season. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Season articles for university teams are essentially auto-keeps, since they ALL, and I do mean ALL, have been substantially covered in multiple published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2016 (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.