Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Baylor Bears baseball 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   merge to Baylor_Bears_baseball. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

2005 Baylor Bears baseball team

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

One season of a college baseball team (for which there are no other season articles). They didn't win a championship, and I see no reason this particular season is notable enough to merit a page, even if sources could be found (which surely in terms of box scores, inconsequential sourcing is possible). Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (and possibly redirect Baylor Bears baseball to Baylor_University). Making it to the CWS semi-finals is something to be proud of, but doesn't automatically give notability for a single season.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete & Merge relevant info to Baylor Bears baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - college sports seasons are widely covered in articles on wikipedia. There isn't a valid reason for deletion given other than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.  And as mentioned by one of the delete votes, significant sourcing can be readily available.  Even beyond the general notability of college athletics, the team, as someone else mentioned, made it into the top 4 places of the College World Series.  Explain to me why this shouldn't be treated the same way as, say, Category:2009–10 NCAA Division I men's basketball season should be? matt91486 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Baylor Bears baseball article isn't too comprehensive itself. Either way, the article should be called 2005 Baylor Bears baseball season, rather than team surely.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk 08:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all the information in this season article could easily be incorporated into the team article, which could be expanded. No reason to have separate season article. Spanneraol (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, college sports articles are routinely given full season articles to allow for more expanded coverage on a topic that gets significant media attention. While certainly the parent article can and should be expanded, it would be absurd to have the parent article focus so strongly on the 2005 season, merely one it's entire history. matt91486 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't completely true, a number of sports projects actively delete college sports season article. Also this is a what about x argument. -DJSasso (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. There's always a gray area between precedent and what about x.  (Which is why AfDs usually get absurd, since all of the guidelines are contradictory anyway).  But the bigger issue is that there was never a valid reason for deletion.  People voting delete have admitted that there is sourcing.  And the reason from the nominator was nothing more than personal preference. matt91486 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge. I agree that there's no valid reason for deletion here as there unquestionably is sourcing to verify information about the team, and the team itself is notable. Even if the (entirely reasonable) editorial decision were made to cover this at the team article 1. that wouldn't require deletion, and 2. could still leave a useful redirect. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:58, 23 May 2010 (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.