Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Arizona State Sun Devils 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The result was   Keep (withdrawn by nom) Cheers.  I 'mperator 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1997 Arizona State Sun Devils football team
Fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE  I 'mperator 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: A football team can't fail or pass WP:ATHLETE as it is a notability guideline for people. Could you please explain why you think it fails WP:ATHLETE? Tavix | Talk  23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, generally the entire team is composed of "athletes", whom each individually fail it. However, it also fails the general notability criteria. Cheers.  I 'mperator 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then if any of the team members had articles, then they would fail it. The team as a whole does not fail it as it is not a person, but a group of people. Tavix | Talk  01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article apparently is going to be about the 1997 season for the Sun Devils team that went undefeated in regular play and lost 20-17 in the Rose Bowl. The text says "The 2007 Arizona State Sun Devils football team represented Arizona State University in the college football season of 2007-2008. The team's head coach was Bruce Synder who was coaching his sixth season with the Sun Devils and 18th season overall. They played their home games at Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe, Arizona."  All I can figure is that the author may have been upset while writing; Snyder, who was the coach in 1997, died yesterday, April 13, 2009.  Generally, an article about the 1997 season would be kept as notable. Mandsford (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete / Userfy Compare the article for the 1996 ASU football team. These season articles are generally kept - and I agree with that typical result - but this article isn't ready for the mainspace, and the article can be easily recreated.  (I don't agree with the nominator's rationale for deletion.) Townlake (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I also don't agree with my own rationale for deletion - keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. This article's problems are surmountable. Townlake (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going to withdraw this article in light of Mandsford and Tavix's comments/explanations. Cheers.  I 'mperator 12:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per comments at talk page, reopened :/ Cheers.  I 'mperator 18:22, 16 April 2009 (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.