Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Mountain West Football 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   no consensus. but I will add an unreferenced tag to the article which may get renominated if sources are not added after a reasonable time. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

2002 Mountain West Football Season

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All that's here are season statistics with no sources, reliable or otherwise, in sight. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I keep receiving mixed signals. "Yes, you can make an article based off a team's season." "Yes, you can make an article based off a conference season." But then.. NO!! Time for an AFD. All that work, right down the shitter in an instant. I had a project lined up to improve a conference's articles (won't name it since you'll nominate everything for deletion). That project will never get off the ground, because all it takes is one administrator to say, "Nope, I think conference and season articles suck," and hundreds of hours will be wiped out in an instant. SashaNein (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm taking a normal editorial action here — one admin can't delete an article unilaterally unless the criteria for speedy deletion are met. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Necessary, useful information in need of CLEANUP to add references that most certainly exist. I want to do it, but confidence that the article will remain after 2 years is zero. It's so much easier to delete than it is to create, after all. SashaNein (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN states that it is for those who want content to be included to provide sources and references. If you can show them, I'll be able to review my nomination. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. RS. V. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep pending the addition of references. This is an extremely notable subject with quite literally tens of thousands of references available, and all that's needed is the time to add them to the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're so sure that the refs exist, let's see them. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (or listify) I tend agree with the nom. Personaly I don't consider this type of info to be importat at all, but I'm a fairly "anti-sports" kind of guy (way too much sports coverage in society at large IMHO), so that's my bias. Most of these "club in season X" articles that are nothing but a list of scores, maybe a team lineup and maybe some unsourced "blow by blow" commentary sprinkled in, of wich this is a perfect example (minus the commentary). A better overall solution would IMHO be to consoludate these things to one list per division/league/whatever (split by year only if it would get exessively long otehrwise). Any notable "non-statistics" information should go into the main article for the club and/or player in question. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is never a good argument, but this discussion could easily apply to probably thousands of other articles as well, so maybe an RFC on this class of articles woudl be something to consider... --Sherool (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, Sherool. Though this article isn't a particularly good example, there are several featured single-season articles floating around out there. If this article is deleted, it should in no way be considered precedent-setting. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An article about a Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (the highest level of the NCAA) season. I have a feeling this article would not be nominated if it was about the Big Ten Conference. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I can tell the article about the division (or conference or whatever) itself is Mountain West Conference and it's not up for deletion. The article in question here is just a a data dump for results for the 2002 season. I think we should focus on writing ensyclopedic articles about the main subjects and let ESPN.com and simmilar sites deal with the statistics mongering that is only interesting to hardcore fans in the first place. --Sherool (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This AFD discussion has been canvassed at the College Football WikiProject. I request that the closing admin take this into account and that any users contributing to this AFD in response to that message identify that they are doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, I don't believe what SashaNein did at WT:CFB is considered inappropriate WP:CANVASSing. It was a neutrally-worded post, serving only to notify people of this discussion.  I equate it to deletion sorting. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was a neutrally worded post, which is clearly allowed. WP:CFB has an archaic deletion sorting method, unlike other projects like WP:VG and WP:BASEBALL. An administrator that doesn't know what is and what is not CANVASSING and starts making sweeping, baseless accusations to gain an unfair advantage in an AFD just because things are not going his way should not be an administrator at all. I request the closing administrator to have the common sense to understand WP:CANVASS. SashaNein (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a D1 football conference. Every one of its seasons should be notable by default. It doesn't matter if you like sports or not, hundreds of thousands, if not millions followed this football season. Would it be better if there was a nice writeup about the season? Sure. If it were the ACC I'd take a crack at it but I don't know much about the MWC. However, it's far more likely that someone with a better understanding of the MWC will come along and contribute to and improve a bland article than it is that same person might create a whole new article. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2008 (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.