Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chicago Maroons 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Chicago Maroons football team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. In the modern era, the University of Chicago has played football at too low a level to warrant having separate articles for its football seasons. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I personally don't have a problem with it, and I think the subject matter clears WP:GNG. The "level" of play does not matter.  It might be better to create an article for the season of the entire conference and integrate the information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still a "keep" but not enough to fight for it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think we have now reached and exceeded the outer limits of notability for a single season of an individual college football team per the guidance of WP:CFBSEASON and WP:ROUTINE.  WP:CFBSEASON states in pertinent part, "Single seasons (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team) can be considered notable.  In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage (see WP:ROUTINE).  In general, seasons that culminate in a bowl game will likely be notable.  However, not all seasons by teams that participate in college football are inherently notable."  (emphasis mine)  For inclusion in Wikipedia as stand-alone articles, it would appear that single seasons must not only satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but also the conditions of WP:CFBSEASON, which is a policy of WikiProject College Football.  WP:CFBSEASON even offers a policy alternative to marginally notable and non-notable single seasons&mdash;combining such seasons into decade-season articles or other multi-season clusters.


 * I am going to withhold my final !vote until I hear some additional arguments of other CFB editors who are well-versed in the applicable notability guidelines and WP:CFB policies. However, I must say that my initial reaction is (a) the 2012 Chicago Maroons football season is not notable, and (b) such CFB seasons as this one would be better served by consolidating it into a decade-season article or similar cluster.


 * I remind everyone who supports keeping this subject as a stand-alone article that the burden rests on them to demonstrate the notability of the single season with specific examples (preferably linked) of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Otherwise, the closing administrator may disregard such "keep" !votes as unsupported.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment In going through the history of WP:CFBSEASON, this policy actually read quite differently before it was edited by an anonymous IP (67.255.21.196) on June 27, 2010 (see here and here for examples of what the policy looked like before and after the IP's edits). For the past 2-3 years editors have been creating articles for every single Division I FBS & FCS team season, regardless of the relative success of the season. As you yourself, Dirtlawyer, noted in the recent Manual of Style debate, when a policy is out of touch with the "facts on the ground" of the actual usage on Wikipedia, it may be the policy itself that is in need of revision. As far as this article goes, I would recommend possibly combining it into some sort of list article, or possibly moving it into the main Chicago Maroons football article, before the article is deleted, and the information is lost forever. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete per WP:CFBSEASON. Division II would be a stretch, but III? Not a chance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is "Division III" does not automatically disqualify from notability, and stating so shows prejudice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Riiight. I'm a "III" hater from way back. I have to restrain myself from nominating Robert Griffin III for deletion. Of course a team with a 4-6 record in a conference I've never heard of gets tons of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you disagree, scratch out the comments about how any division III program would not have a chance of notability. That would be a start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Many Division I teams don't have (or deserve) season articles. The only non-local press coverage I can recall seeing for Division III is when the national champion is crowned. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the past seven days, no one has provided any reliable, independent sources to demonstrate the notability of the 2012 Chicago Maroons football season, nor any other rationale to support a stand-alone article regarding the subject.  Per my comments above, I believe the subject fails to satisfy either the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG or the specific requirements of WP:CFBSEASON.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pending the outcome of this Afd, I'd recommend nominating most or all of the articles in Category:NCAA Division III football seasons. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarity, I am supporting the deletion of this article because it fails to satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG and the additional requirements of WP:CFBSEASON. If you propose to nominate multiple CFB season articles for AfD, I would suggest that you review those provisions first, as well as the WP:BEFORE subsection of the Articles for deletion policy.  Your comment above suggest that your don't fully understand the Wikipedia concept of "notability" per WP:N and its various AfD policy implications.  There is nothing inherently notable in any college football season, Division III, Division II or Division I FBS; all of them must satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CFBSEASON to be included as stand-alone Wikipedia articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that being a Division III school does not automatically disqualify the article from being notable. Indeed, one could argue that a championship or a similar achievement would bring notability. However, I do think that football season articles associated with a Division III school tend to lack the sources and coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Most of the articles in Category:NCAA Division III football seasons could be candidates not because they're associated with Division III, but rather because they share a lack of notability. Edge3 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's analogous to baseball. The major leagues (like Division I) get a lot of press, Triple A (II) not much, and Double A (III) barely a peep, doubly so for teams with middling records or worse (1-9?). Possibly a case could be made for the participants in the NCAA Division III National Football Championships (none of which have season articles), but I doubt the rest qualify (with the odd exception). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 8 January 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.