Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 Pittsburgh Steelers season


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close.Jgera5 (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

1978 Pittsburgh Steelers season

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Valid article topic, but this isn't an article, just a list of box scores and no other content. Fails WP:NOT, Merge or Delete This is a Secret account 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also adding all the articles between 1969 Pittsburgh Steelers season to 1977 Pittsburgh Steelers season, for the same reasoning, only box scores This is a Secret account 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete clear concur with nom. Not a merge candidate either. FT2 (Talk 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not really a fan of an article that adds nothing except boxes and numbers. Some history would be nice. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all You admit that these are valid topics, so what does deletion accomplish? Just keep the articles and let people add some prose. (Or add some yourself.) I think NOT#STATS only applies to articles that can never be more than collections of statistics, which isn't the case here. Zagalejo^^^ 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all Not my subject, but with respect to NOT STATS, it is clear from the context that the meaning of it was to apply to pure statistics only--otherwise it would apply to many incomplete pages. STUBs and other incomplete pages are acceptable in WP. DGG (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a list of box scores, those are the same as stats, I prefer to merge all these article, discounting the box scores into a certain section of the teams articles. This is a Secret account 02:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. When I do new page patrol and I see someone entering a whole batch of new pages about a season in a professional team's history, I systematically skip all such entries as inherently valid stubs. These are no exception. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Valid topic; I'm clearing up the '78 article now. Mackensen (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all Valid topic. AFD is not cleanup. --W.marsh 03:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all and cleanup. AfD is not cleanup, nor a way to propose merges (WP:MERGE explains how to do it editorially).  Daniel  03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all AfD is not used to force the acceleration of article progression. east. 718 at 03:56, November 26, 2007
 * Keep I withdraw, still don't agree with the list of boxscores though This is a Secret account 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep all and clean up. As the original author of this and the other referenced articles, I would like to make the following defenses of their existence:


 * The stubs are a direct response to the community, whose interest is evidenced by the season links on the "Pittsburgh Steelers" tag.
 * The format of the stubs follows those of more recent seasons. (See: 2007_Pittsburgh_Steelers_season)
 * Several stubs have been appended by other members to integrate them with other articles about the Pittsburgh Steelers.
 * If this content is deleted, it will have to be re-created by the community when it decides to address the topics.
 * The 1979 season article has sat for two months as a place keeper -- not even a stub -- without drawing a formal AfD, yet these pages -- with real information -- are being targeted.
 * As evidenced by the "stub" tag and empty fields, these pages were never meant to be simply a list of box scores.
 * The period that I have addressed was an important period of the team's history, during which it won four Super Bowls.
 * We might not be talking about the Potsdam Conference, but it was my little way of addressing what I see as a bias toward current events, at the expense of historical ones.
 * I believe that Wikipedia has evolved to the point where covering individual seasons at this granularity of detail has merit.
 * I understand that starting with the schedule and box scores might not be the only way to summarize a season, but I did so because it provides a natural framework to the article and is verifiable, neutral, and not subject to copyright. Future prose (that I hope to add and to be added) will build on these facts.

It is my intention to continue working on these articles. This will mean that I will not only search the Internet for information, but also will scour microfilm and other sources to add to what exists.

I know that it might seem that these are simple box scores, but each page took quite a bit of time to research and create. (Where were the Jets playing in 1974? What was the Bills' stadium called in 1977?)

I appreciate the improvements to the 1978 season page made by Mackensen and plan to incorporate them into the other pages.

-Thank you Fruminous (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

are fairly irrelavent to the discussion and consists of unneeded trivia, I still prefer to merge most of them into an article on the 1970s steelers with the exception of the super bowl champs This is a Secret account 05:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I voted keep, but (Where were the Jets playing in 1974? What was the Bills' stadium called in 1977?)

(Where were the Jets playing in 1974? What was the Bills' stadium called in 1977?) is in reference to where the games were actually being played, so when putting it in the synopses, I considered it directly relevant.

--Thank you for the input Fruminous (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep them all. We have an editor actively working on improving them. We have articles on more current seasons for various professional teams in various sports so deleting these would show a bias towards current events as opposed to past events. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThere are plenty of other sports articles like this one, so why would this one get tagged? I take it that people just don't have anything better to do on their time than to submit an AfD on a page they don't want. I just went through this the other day with Vocelli Pizza. We have plenty of articles that could be tagged right now that aren't, yet people are tagging articles like this one that are legit. Gheez.Jgera5 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2007 (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.