Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Buffalo State Bengals 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   delete. Wizardman 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

2011 Buffalo State Bengals football team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 05:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412  T 00:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This a non-notable season for a minor college football program.  The WP:CFB precedents are clear: in the absence of meaningful coverage (i.e. not routine, not trivial) in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG, single CFB seasons for minor programs do not get anything like an "automatic pass."  Frankly, it's not supposed to be automatic for Division I FBS programs, either.  We do make exceptions for non-notable seasons when they are combined with other seasons by decade, coaching tenure or some other logical and coherent grouping.  If the article creator wants to have this article userfied so that he can work on expanding to a full decade of seasons (e.g. 2000-09), I would support that in keeping with established WP:CFB precedent.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge but which target? An article for the conference season, or all seasons for one school?  But if no one is willing to keep those up then Delete would be the choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse.  That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances.  I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of Buffalo State Bengals football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main Buffalo State Bengals football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What rush? What need for dialogue? It was, as I recall, suggested to create a broader, more acceptable article. You've had more than enough time since the first Afd to do so. It's hardly Edge3's fault that you haven't, nor is it his responsibility to do it for you. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
 * Articles for deletion/2011 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2011 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2010 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2010 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2009 Buffalo State Bengals football team
 * Articles for deletion/2009 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Articles for deletion/2008 St. Norbert Green Knights football team
 * Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dirtlawyer1. A 5-5 season for a Division III team? Seriously? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see several reasons in favor of deletion of the article, but the fact that they had a 5-5 record is not one of them. Would we keep it if they had a 10-0 season?  Or 9-1?  Or 8-2?  Kind of fits the Arbitrary Inclusion argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. Are you kidding? A 10-0 season has a lot more chance of attracting press notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No I'm not kidding. Certainly a 10-0 season has a lot more chance of attracting press notice.  but it would be the press notice that would gain the notability, not necessarily a 10-0 season.  Or a 9-1.  Or 8-2.  A team can be 0-11 and get press notice too, such as my (beloved) 1988 Kansas State Wildcats football team.  It's not the record that matters, it's the coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. All of the related individual Buffalo State Bengals football season articles have now been deleted -- other than this one.  By a quirk of individual !voting/consensus determination for each of these team season articles, this AfD remains open while the others have been deleted; there are now no viable articles to be merged with this one.  As I said above, however, as an alternative to deleting this article, I would support userfying it and the others in order to give the article creator the opportunity to create a season-decade article or other mutlti-season list per WP:CFBSEASON.  The ball is now in the article creator's court to propose an alternative.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said, Dirtlawyer1. However, nobody owns the article (WP:OWN), including the article creator, so there is no obligation for him to propose an alternative. Edge3 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Edge, there is no ownership and no obligation, but there is an opportunity per WP:CFBSEASON for the article creator or anyone else who wants to pick up the ball and run with it (if you'll pardon the metaphor). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope someone is enthusiastic enough to propose a good merger possibility. I'd do it but I've got my hands full with NAIA season articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2013 (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.