Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules


 * 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 for an administrative deletion, which is AfD's scope. Several of both the keep and delete arguments are actually arguments for something else (moves, merges, userfication, etc.), but there is no consensus at this point on what form that should take. That's an editorial decision, and this close should not be considered an end to that discussion, but rather encouragement that it continue from this point. I would remind editors involved in that discussion to remain civil, to remember that the community at large, not any given WikiProject, determines both policy at large and its implementation in specific, and to talk to one another rather than past one another. Continuous repetition doesn't help anything move forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

East Carolina Pirates future football schedules

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. There's nothing encyclopedic about incomplete future schedules. Plus, it is the only article in Category:Conference USA future football seasons, which I've also listed for deletion (here). The user who created this can move this information to a user sub-page, then extract that info when the time comes. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:HAMMER. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Essays are not Wikipedia policies" per the link you provided. Wrad (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everything has to be based on policy. See WP:IAR (itself a policy--oh the irony!).  Also, Five pillars, straight from Jimbo's brain: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules."--GrapedApe (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are arguing that this should be deleted based on IAR? Hardly a solid reason for deletion. Wrad (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete Abstain Keep and userfy information per WP:CRYSTAL--not ready for inclusion.  Yes, we want it for later...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm dropping out. It's well sourced.  I wouldn't include it, but if someone wants to keep it I guess it's okay.  I still think it's clumsy to do so at this time, as is... but oh, well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I reserve the right to change my mind again and again when I'm wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear, you do not want to userfy. You want a straight keep? Wrad (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. I changed my position above and am Mr. Flip-Flop in this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete If the future information is considered notable, it should be placed in articles like 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, etc instead of creating a temporarily article like this.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like what you want is a move, not a delete. Wrad (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Move is a rename to another article name. In this case, the final destination is multiple articles.  So delete this one, and re-populate info to their respective article.  If responding, please close this thread and respond to similar, more recent thread below at 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC). —Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am the creator of this page. I was following many pages out there, including BYU, Colorado and Notre Dame.  So I am not sure why this article is the only one receiving this treatment.   P G  Pirate  02:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, this isn't being singled out - it's just what somebody came across. Thanks for pointing out the other stuff though. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PGPirate has a good point here. Shouldn't we consider all of these articles and any other similar ones together? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. It's very likely they all fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Not singling out any team here. We hacked through this stuff before, the conclusion we came to then was that "next year's season" was likely already not only close to solidified, but able to source as well.  We then decided that "next year's team" or "next year's schedule" would make a valid article, generally speaking.  Beyond one year was difficult to properly source.  Of course, that can change and I'm open to revisiting the discussion.  PLUS those were "general" discussions and that can always change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - But I properly sourced all of my data. It isn't an assumption.  Many football teams set up their schedule many years in advance. This page shows all that information in one place.  I still don't see why this should be deleted.  P G  Pirate  17:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia =/= ESPN. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't like this article, but I don't see that it (or the other similar articles mentioned) should be deleted. It's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation (or WP:HAMMER) -- if you think so, I suggest you re-read that policy -- because it is not only verifiable but well-sourced, and it meets the criterion that "it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" (each season meets this criterion). As I think about it, this, and any other such articles, should probably be named SCHOOL MASCOT football future seasons (so this would be "East Carolina Pirates football future seasons"). Then, as the start of each future season approaches, that section can be spun off as its own article (e.g "2012 East Carolina Pirates football season"). The article is also clearly not an "indiscriminate collection of information", it contains a discrete set of information, and has the potential for much more (prose) with the name change I suggested. cmadler (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL; while the individual games might not be notable enough for standalone articles, the seasons certainly will be, and the games once scheduled are highly likely to actually be played.  The article also does not violate WP:HAMMER; the closest thing a football season has to a "track list" is a list of scheduled games, and that is precisely what the article is listing.  Sourcing is for the most part high-quality, being from local newspapers.  The media frequently reports on teams scheduling future out of conference opponents as demonstrated by the sourcing in the article; it is not "trivial" as asserted by the nominator.  I believe the material in the article meets WP:GNG and therefore should be kept.  –Grondemar 23:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be outside the proper scope of wikipedia. This is just a list of games that have not happened, and for all we know will not happen (some games get cancelled for various reasons).  I would support deleting any other articles along these same lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Each individual game is subject to change or cancellation, true, but the probability of each future season occurring is somewhere around 99.99% -- a near-certainty. Since each season, as it occurs (and indeed, up to about 9 months before each begins) is deemed suitable for Wikipedia, a well-sourced article covering plans that have already been made for future seasons should also be suitable. cmadler (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, just to demostate that cancellation is a bigger issue than some people are accepting in the Notre Dame article there is this note "At least one additional date home or away if the UConn series is canceled as expected", so it is not only that these are incomplete schedules with lots of TBA, but there is a high probability that they will change. I am unconvinced that the time of a game is general encyclopedic.  This just strikes me as too much information.  This is not ESPN.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia often gives information about expected future events that is subject to change, and properly so. As long as it continues to be well-sourced, this is little different than an article in 2007 dealing with the constantly changing 2008 US Presidential Primary schedule. cmadler (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Norte Dame is the exception, more than the rule. They are independent (not in a football conference), so their schedule is more fluid than the vast majority of the other FBS teams.  Also, people keep saying "Wikipedia isn't ESPN".  For a point of information, ESPN doesn't store future schedules. P G  Pirate  00:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By saying "Wikipedia is not ESPN", it's a more reader-friendly way of saying "Wikipedia isn't a [sports conglomerate] who beholds all statistical and schedule-like sports information to the point of absurdity." I knew for a fact that ESPN doesn't list future schedules; it's a relate-able way to get the point across for WP:NOT. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that is good you knew, but I am letting the voting public know, in case they didn't.  P G Pirate  04:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. ;) Also, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK might be worth linking to when using "WP is not ESPN". - The Bushranger One ping only 09:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One or two little case studies does not change the fact that an agreement to play is a contract, and those contracts are rarely broken. They are exceptions proving a general rule, that is why people report on them in the news. Wikipedia may not be ESPN, but it is supposed to report what the sources say, and this article is well-cited (not even to ESPN, really). Again, this is sounding a lot like you just don't like it and are making up clever little quotes found nowhere in any actual Wikipedia policy to support your position. Wrad (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This meets our inclusion criteria, is appropriately sourced, and is well within accepted and long running practise - Category:Scheduled sports events, which includes 2022 FIFA World Cup, among hundreds of other future scheduled sports events and seasons.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy As it stands, this page is not up to standards. However, these games are scheduled and do not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Rather, these items should stand as the start to 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, etc. once they can be reformatted. The same should be done to the other examples the article creator identified. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When you write that "this page is not up to standards", to what specific standards are you referring? cmadler (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of using the sniff test on this one. It seems to not be notable as it's presented, though its individual items are notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu. Wikipedia should not have holder articles for information that will need to be moved to a permanent article later. For example, we would have United States presidential election, 2016, not United States presidential election, future candidates. Similarly, articles like 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, should be created if such seasons will likely be notable. Schedules themselves are not notable, but the seasons might be. It is inappropriate to have an article of rotating timely information that will soon be dated and constantly needs to be rotated out. This could be considered WP:NOT or WP:ROUTINE, which both discourage articles based on mere announcements.—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that this should be renamed (and somewhat reworked, but it's relatively minor) from "schedules" to "seasons" -- I mentioned that above. Each of those future seasons is likely to occur and likely to be notable, and in fact some future seasons might already be able to meet GNG. In keeping with your point about United States presidential election, 2016, which currently redirects to United States presidential election, do you think it would be better to merge this information into List of East Carolina Pirates football seasons, as a section between the "Seasons" and "References" sections? cmadler (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to put future opponents in a centralized section or article as opposed to just listing them in individual season articles? Are opponents really notable outside of a season?—Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is right. The seasons are notable, even future ones, though "future opponents" in general are not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we obviously aren't ready to create, for example, 2018 East Carolina Pirates football team. In the past, I believe information on future schedules (one aspect -- usually the one known farthest in advance -- of seasons) was included as a section within the main team article (e.g. East Carolina Panthers football, though that didn't happen in this specific case). The information eventually grew to take up too big a part of the main team articles and was pushed off into sub-articles such as the one we're discussing. Looked at with that in mind, I think the issue facing us is that we have sourced information (elements of future schedules, or in the case of some of the Notre Dame seasons, full schedules) on a notable topic, but we aren't sure where to put it. As I mentioned, although it will eventually (years from now) go into the individual season articles, that is not a good solution right now. It could go into the "main" article, but there was a valid reason such content was originally pushed out. If you say that we shouldn't collect future seasons into a single article, and as I've already mentioned we can't push the information down a level to all the season articles, the only thing left is to push the information up, either to the lists of seasons or back into the main articles. (You'll note that I'm using some generalities, because I think we should seek an outcome that can be similarly applied to all such articles.) cmadler (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see why it is "obvious" that an article on a future season cannot be created. It would satisfy WP:CRYSTAL since "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred".  It seems preferable to place verifiable information in an article that is likely to exist as opposed to creating a news article with transient information.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is any verifiable information on a subject, it's not too soon to start its article, even if it is about a football season that will take place in 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to East Carolina Pirates football. Useful info related to this team's football program, but doesn't really stand alone as an article. De  Fault  Ryan  20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is completely different from the United States presidential election. No one officially knows who will be in the 2016 etc presidential elections, that IS WP:CRYSTAL.  The future football schedules I have listed are in a contract and outside of extraneous forces, they will occur.  Plus having every future season as its own page isn't very concise and would be better for all of the end-users to use.  Also, previous season's have different ways of disseminating this information.  Some have a 10-year "block" to show the schedule and results, such as Texas A&M Aggies football, 1930–1939.  Other teams have it by their coach like Penn State Nittany Lions football under Joe Paterno (as an Independent).  The second one couldn't be used because it would be WP:CRYSTAL to assume the present coach would be here for the next season.  I don't see why something like the 10-year block for the future schedules isn't appropriate.  Here's to being WP:BOLD.   P G  Pirate  21:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why "having every future season as its own page isn't very concise". Each article would have the scheduled opponents for that respective season. Unless we are arguing that these seasons might not be notable later, I think it is even bolder to create the articles now instead of creating a holding article and inevitably having to spin out later.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some of these articles will be very short, perhaps too short to defend as an article. For example, if East Carolina signs a deal to play Texas (for example) in a home-and-home series in 2019–2020, would it really make sense to create the article 2020 East Carolina Pirates football team just to mention that one game?  I think it makes much more sense to keep all of the future games in a single list article, until there is enough information on the upcoming season to better justify the existence of the team season article. –Grondemar 00:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the concern that someone might come in and AfD the future season article on the grounds that it doesnt have enough sources to meet WP:GNG? If so, I think we should ignore all rules and allow these articles to be created since the article is likely to be notable based on precedence of other current season articles. It seems like an improvement to our process to avoid the creation of holding articles in lieu of creating the actual season articles.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that a list's membership may change over time is no reason not to have the list article. A list such as this is appropriate when there is very little detail that would justify creating a future season article.  This is similar to the principle of WP:HAMMER; if we only knew about one song on a future album, would we keep an article about the album?  WP:SAL also encourages creating lists of information that, while notable in collection, would have difficulty justifying its existence in separate articles. –Grondemar 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:HAMMER is more applicable to an article based on unverified information, of which an album without a title is a symptom of a non-notable article. Of course there are no names to football seasons, and verifiable sources is not an issue here. Again, I think we are getting too ingrained into policies and guidelines here, and should just start the future season articles based on the verifiable information for a future season that is likely to be notable.  If the season never becomes notable, they can be deleted later.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge into East Carolina Pirates football article. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * East Carolina Pirates football is already a decent-size article at almost 5000 words; adding this much content specifically about future schedules would be WP:UNDUE weight. Having a separate list of future schedules is in the spirit of WP:Summary style, although a brief paragraph on the future schedules should be added to the main team article. –Grondemar 00:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The East Carolina page is around 5000 words, but other college pages may be longer, so it would make those articles even longer. Not a good idea.  P G  Pirate  20:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Crystal ballism and irrelevant information for wikipedia. Each year can have an article, not all future years.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take another look at WP:CRYSTAL, which prohibits unverified speculation. This is neither speculative (for most games contracts have already been signed by the schools) nor is it unverified (in fact, it's well-cited). cmadler (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, then, it's not a crystal ball article--just a useless one.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Being "useful" or "useless" is not a deletion issue. It's too much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Let me be clear:  I don't like it either.  I think the article creators should have waited or even voluntarily agreed to move the whole shmeer to userspace.  But that isn't the way it works.  Editors can choose to be enthusiastic about virtually any subject they wish.  Our questions should only be if the articles are notable and otherwise don't violate any policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lecture, but I'm aware of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay. This is an article whose content is completely without encyclopedic value.  Delete it, for the good of the cause.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll bite which "good" and which "cause" do you speak of? Please be specific.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll spell it out: The "cause" is making a better encyclopedia. The "good" is having articles that are worthwhile. ERgo, deleting this article is good (i.e. not having articles without worth) for the cause (i.e. making a better encyclopedia).  Please advise if you require more specificity. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to get more specific. The challenge that the argument faces is that if an article is "good" or "worthwhile" is a matter of opinion.  As we have seen here, opinions can vary greatly from one person to another.  Notability, however, is not a matter of opinion.  Now, if you can show where the article violates a specific policy then I'm with you on it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be more specific (and I know how important that is): deleting this improves the encyclopedia. Why? Because it's about games up to 7 years into the future.  For the record, those freshman players are in 6th grade right now.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But you still haven't explained why it would be an improvement to delete the article. Why is 7 years in the future too far out?  Should we apply that thinking to 2022 Winter Olympics?  I agree we should ignore the rules when the rules prevent making the encyclopedia better.  You have only scratched an opinion on why ignoring the rules would do that, and one that many here seem to disagree.  So the freshman players are in sixth grade right now, so what?  They're not going to be the only noteworthy people involved in the program--coaches come to mind.  But even without that, there are significant reliable sources here.  You need to do better than "the games are in the future"--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that it must be kept. How will the sum of human knowledge be advanced by noting in an encyclopedia that in 7 years the Pirates play the WVU Muntaineers at A TIME TO BE DETERMINED?--GrapedApe (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the essay at WP:USEFUL, which means that being useful or not useful is not really an argument to make in deletion. Wikipedia is filled with articles that many would say are not "useful" -- as for the advancement of the sum human knowledge, we don't do that here either.  Wikipedia does not participate in original research--we build encyclopedic articles--sometimes those articles are based on other people's original research after they have advanced the sum of human knowledge.  Further, I tend to agree with the essay at WP:COMPREHENSIVE that states Wikipedia "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects."--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if I created a completely well cited article about New York City future weather, with a continually-updated 7 day forecast of NYC, you would keep it?  What about Long Beach tide chart?  You would think all of them unencyclopedic and unworthy of inclusion?--GrapedApe (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hard to say without seeing the sources first, but go for it! You'll probably have trouble with WP:NOTNEWS because it would need to be continually refreshed as it would be better suited for WikiNews.  This clearly does not fit that category as the article is not the next game played by Eastern Carolina Pirates football team.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, this shows the absurdity on the keep !votes: they would support an article with the 7 day forecast article.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read it again 1) I didn't say I'd support it, I said you'd have trouble with it.  2)  I said that would be a different article altogether and doesn't apply. 3) No one else said they'd support it, so saying "they" is giving undue weight to an already incorrect argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is totally unnecessary games not taken place and even if have shouldn't be on here not notable. Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Are you saying that we should delete the article because college football seasons are not notable?  We have featured articles on college football seasons such as 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team.  College football is widely covered by high-quality reliable sources in the US such as the New York Times.  The subject of college football easily meets WP:GNG many times over.  If your argument is that we should delete the article because the games have not yet taken place, note that, as noted above by several people, WP:CRYSTAL only prohibits unsourced speculation about future events.  Future events highly likely to take place with verifiable, notable information about them are most definitely allowed.  Articles like 2016 Olympic Games, 2018 FIFA World Cup, and even United States presidential election, 2012 should be deleted by that logic. –Grondemar 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment many and perhaps all of the games to be played should exceed the threshold of WP:GNG when they are played and will most likely be considered notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the key word there was when they are played. Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction I made a mistake. Instead of "when they are played" I should have said "now" because of the significant independent third party coverage for the events now.  I was confused as I was responding to the argument that even when they will be played they will not be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a list of fixtures there is no guarantee they will happen whether things are currently confirmed or not. Once they have been played then ok but until then it is essentially a non notable fixture list which is not what wiki is for. Edinburgh   Wanderer  23:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response that doesn't matter, because the events are getting covered in reliable sources today, which is exactly what Wikipedia is for.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely wrong see my comment below Secret account 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Confused The statement below of yours that I see merely states that you think that more general discussion needs to take place on future schedules. If that's what you are referencing, then how am I be "completely wrong" when by your own admission (that there is need for discussion) I could actually be "completely right" ??  Am I reading the wrong one?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it and I have to say those arguments do not make my position "completely wrong" at all. WP:CRYSTAL is not violated, as is clearly outlined in other arguments on this page so I won't re-hash it.  It isn't WP:OR because of all the citations in the article from independent, reliable sources.  Maybe WP:NOTNEWS can apply, but myself and others do not think it applies here as well.  College football scheduling is a big deal.  At most, we disagree but you have not invalidated any argument I or others have made, merely disagreeing with it.  By using the phrase "completely wrong" you are putting undue weight on to the various arguments made.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant my delete comment, not the more discussion comment. Secret account 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule, Articles for deletion/Colorado Buffaloes football future schedule, Articles for deletion/BYU Cougars future football schedules.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The kinds of teams a university can get on its future schedule often say a lot about where that school is headed in the national picture. This article is well-organized and well-cited. It is not indiscriminate. It confines itself to East Carolina alone. Finally, WP:NOT contains no policy against this kind of article. Nowhere does it say "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia." In my opinion, you can't just say "Wikipedia is not..." and then add whatever suits you. Wrad (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from INDISCRIMINATE. Well-organised and well-cited are not sufficient for inclusion, neither is not explicitly being advised against. Even though it is (here).-- Carbon Rodney 06:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It has a limited topic and it sticks to that topic. An indiscriminate collection would talk about all kinds of things with no apparent connection between them. WP:BALL does not apply because this is not rumor or speculation. These are signed contracts of agreement to play in a certain season. Wrad (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:DISCRIMINATE: the list is not indiscriminate at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete at its current state. I personally rather see these type of articles split off to the proper 2012 and 2013 season articles. Yes these college football seasons unless some unexpected thing, such as the closure of the football program happens, will get played. But I don't see the point on why an article on the "future football schedule" should exist instead of the season article. The season articles can be formed for these games, as there's enough information, including recruiting players, coaching contracts and so forth.


 * The title indicates "a future schedule", which Wikipedia isn't the news for, and after 2014 or so, deep into WP:CRYSTAL territory. These schedules can change anytime, for example West Virginia is trying to terminate the contract for playing Florida State next season . If West Virginia is allowed to get out of the contract with Florida State, and with all the conference realignment and such, these schedules are going become highly unstable, and usefulness of the list is gone. There's consensus to delete lists that are very dependent on current events that is very uncertain, and this list is depending on original research on who they might play in their conference and such.


 * Also just because it's mentioned in reliable sources doesn't mean that it automatically passes WP:N. We have WP:NOT for articles such like this. If everything mentioned with a reliable source gets an article, this project will be a BLP and news nightmare, not an encyclopedia. I hope some of the keeps reconsider their position with the article, as many of the keeps (and some of the deletes) rationales are faulty. Secret account 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are motioning for move or merge rather than delete in your suggestions here. Wrad (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll accept a move or a merge, as long as the confusing title is removed and it's heavily trimmed (like information from 2016 and such) Secret account 00:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: From WP:CRYSTAL: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." - Most of the times and some of the venues are 'TBA'. I think an argument can be made for the 2012 schedule but not for anything beyond that. The article iteself claims that UConn is expected to be canceled but that this report is unconfirmed. With so much up in the air, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia.-- Carbon Rodney 06:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are not reading the cited sources. The information in this article is verifiable and is not original research. They are signed contracts of agreement to play, with only a few exceptions. There really isn't a lot up in the air here. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although my preference is to see these put into the relevant 2012, 2013, etc. articles, the discussion of forking/splitting should take place after there is a consensus on whether to keep or delete the content. With verifiable information at hand, I do not think WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HAMMER are entirely relevant. In fact, the parts of WP:CRYSTAL that CarbonRodney omitted state: 1) "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and 2) "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." These future football seasons are almost certain to take place and that information can be verified. Whether or not the content is "indiscriminate", "trivial", "unnecessary", "irrelevant", or "unencyclopdic" is POV, however, I would concede that a case could be made that the content violates the "routine announcements" clause of WP:NOT#NEWS. Location (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear with how this AFD is forming that the college football editor community is confused to what to do with these articles, as it's not specified in WP:NSPORTS. I think further discussion should be mentioned there before any other articles or AFDs are created of the subject. Secret account 07:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with notability once it happens. But for now it's a list of fixtures that there is no guarantee will happen. Something else that has occurred to me which I don't know if is the case with there's or not. For instance if we publish a list of fixtures for football in the uk we are in breach of copyright the games have to be played before we are able to show them. It would take someone more familiar with the topic to answer that. Edinburgh  Wanderer  10:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how publishing a list of games that are known to be scheduled is a copyright issue, since copyright doesn't cover facts, only an expression of those facts. If "the games have to be played" before they can be published as a list, then how is anyone to know of future sporting events? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems nonsensical. cmadler (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ":It may be nonsensical but its totally true. The leagues in the uk charge companies on licence to display the fixtures and are covered by copyright. If wikipedia shows them then we are breaching copyright law. I do not know if this is the case here as have little knowledge of the setup. Edinburgh  Wanderer  16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's very interesting, and every bit as much a farce as the National Portrait Gallery row. Like the NPG dispute, this fixture claim appears to be based on a "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which is explicitly rejected in US case law (cf. Feist v. Rural); since Wikipedia (and the parent Wikimedia Foundation) are based in Florida, "the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States" (WP:PD). cmadler (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

-  P G Pirate  17:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete his will definately be a notable topic, but not under this title and not today. There just aren't sufficient reliable sources available. Until the schedule is annouced, this article will be completely based on conjecture and rumor and is merely WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing. RadioFan (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take another look at this article, which is based on published statements regarding signed contracts -- hardly "conjecture and rumor" -- and at WP:CRYSTAL, which is blatantly not applicable here ("All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."). cmadler (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These are no more rumors than are signed declarations of war. Wrad (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Have we read WP:BALL lately?
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. - Every point has a verified news source
 * All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. - Previous year-by-year football schedule articles AND year-by-year articles bulked together (i.e. by decade or coach) are already accepted on Wikipedia.
 * It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. - n/a
 * It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. - This article is 100% fact. No opinion exist.
 * Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. - n/a
 * In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). - n/a
 * Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. - Individual games and season are notable. Contracts are complete and they're "almost certain to take place". Preparation for the events are already in progress per the contracts the schools have with each other.
 * Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names - n/a
 * Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. - Only facts are listed.
 * While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected... - n/a
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors - n/a
 * Yep, looks like WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I flipped through a 2003 hard cover, paper copy encyclopedia last night - couldn't find any such entries for future schedules of anything. Then I flipped through a recent Sports Illustrated magazine and saw upcoming NBA games. To clarify my point for those whose heads it went over: This ECU article is unencyclopedic by its very nature. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What up Straw man  P G Pirate  21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly a reason for deletion. There are plenty of things Wikipedia has that paper encyclopedias don't have. Why not look at the sources that the article does cite? Wrad (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER comes to mind. Gosh, there is a lot of [{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] here!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Too bad WP:BALL doesnt address why we need to park this news in a single future schedule article for multiple seasons, when articles like 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, etc are where this information will ultimately reside. It would be good to get consensus on where to present this information, which is verifiable and not rumors. This cannot be dont outside an AfD, since its not a matter of a redirect if its decided the information doesnt belong in this article.  We can't redirect to multiple future seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand your comment. Wrad (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Put another way: Why not delete East Carolina Pirates future football schedules and put information in 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, where the final schedule will ultimately be anyways. We are creating too much work for ourselves creating holding articles.—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not for that idea, which is a whole other debate. But current practice is to combine a "block" of years together, when just the schedule is put together.  Single season pages are implemented when other facts are presented, such as the recruiting class and game history.  I still think it is better to block all future schedules in one article.   P G  Pirate  21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the divergent responses in this AfD, it doesnt appear there is consensus for this "current practice" yet. Can you expand on why it is "better to block all future schedules in one article" instead of putting it in the article it will inevitably end up in?—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're able to divulge more information out of a "future block". A reader is able to see if this is a one-time game or apart of a series. The reader is able to see if a particular future schedule looks harder one year than another.  Outside of the schedule, nothing is known about the future schedule, and I believe doesn't warrant a separate page until more information is factually know (such as recruiting commit).   P G  Pirate  23:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated earlier, "If there is any verifiable information on a subject, it's not too soon to start its article, even if it is about a football season that will take place in 2018." The season future seasons for all intents and purposes will be notable—start and add information to it now, not later. Having to wait for recruiting commitments is an artificial rule which forces IMO unneccesary holding articles such as this one. Regarding your point about "one-time game or apart of a series" and "schedule looks harder one year than another", these points aren't any more notable for future games than it is for past games. If it is notable at all, there should be a general East Carolina Pirates football opponents that covers both past and future opponents, not a specific future schedule article like we have here.—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTDIR says Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. I can imagine future football schedules would be a small article. So it is permitted to merge the group based on the core topic (future schedules).  P G Pirate  21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because the article is "permitted" by a policy, does not mean it is advisable or should be blindly followed. Unless you are arguing that the future season articles will remain small or you are doubting they are notable, I again contend we are unnecessarily creating extra articles and work for ourselves. There has been no reason why the presentation of future opponents should be handled differently and separately from past opponents if the reason to keep is "to see if this is a one-time game or apart of a series"—Bagumba (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So once again, when policy arguments break down, people fall back on IAR. IAR is hardly a solid reason for deletion here, and basically adds up to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, though, for admitting that Wikipedia policy supports the article's existence. Wrad (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, I am having a discussion and not just dropping acronyms or just pointing at a policy or guideline. Feel free to comment on why we should not treat all series with opponents, both past and future, in the same article if the point is for readers to see if a game is a  "one-time game or apart of a series".  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to brush aside all of these quotations and lengthy explications of actual Wikipedia policy as violations of WP:JUSTAPOLICY has got some serious denial issues. Wrad (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I saw another person reference the sports notability page. First off The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below. - Yes this is done.  Now to the specific criteria below on Individual seasons.  Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.  Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.  - There is well sourced, but decent prose.  It goes on to say In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article. - Individual future seasons are notable enough on their own (i.e. individual pages for each future year), but you're able to group them together any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article. What more reasonable standard than future schedules on one page?


 * Also from the Wikipedia is not a directory, these future seasons are notable enough to pass the NOTDIR sniff test. Also it says Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted.  I can imagine future football schedules would be a small article.  So it is permitted to merge the group based on the core topic (future schedules).


 * To the people who want to merge it with East Carolina Pirates football, you need to worry about Article size. I assume that page is fairly average in length.  Some other schools with a greater history could be longer.


 * So now what?  P G  Pirate  23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Great stuff on sports notability, PGPirate. Shoving all of this into the main team page doesn't make much sense. There just isn't room and there would be all kinds of WP:UNDUE going on. Splitting it all up into half a dozen new articles doesn't make much sense, either, not only because it is more convenient to have it all in one place, but also because future schedules aren't presented that way in a lot of the source material. Usually what is said is that "team x and team y have signed deal z to play from year a to year b under conditions c." That kind of reporting in the source material lends itself to a long horizon kind of look, not a year by year look. Wrad (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree merging to the main article is in appropriate in this case. But my main concern here is that there is no guarantee these game will ever be played yes a contract has been signed so WP:CRYSTAL dosent totally apply but were talking a long time away anything can happen that could cause these matches not to be played. The team is notable, by definition the seasons are but is a fixture list of anything not just this team notable. fixtures will receive coverage when a team is notable but is this more than just routine coverage personally i feel not. These should be added to relevant season articles when they are due to be played not even created now. Edinburgh   Wanderer  00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is doing the Crystal Balling now? Talk about speculation! "Anything can happen." By that logic the sun might not come out tomorrow. And the 2020 Olympics might be cancelled due to a world war. And the Presidential elections scheduled in Egypt might be rescheduled because of a revolution. The fact is, the sources decide what is reliable, and Wikipedia follows suit. If the sources say such and such event will happen at such and such a time, that is what Wikipedia says until sources say things have changed. Wrad (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but in such a case, the schedule change will probably continue to be noted in the article(s). For an example, see 2003 Eastern Michigan Eagles football team. cmadler (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment-Don't take offence to what is say I'm just stating facts there is no guarantee these matches will take place you will also note in my delete vote i did not quote WP:CRYSTAL one of the few people against this that didn't. If we were taking this year or next then maybe but 2018. Anyway its a fixture list i cannot see how it is notable in any way shape or form. As i said the club is there seasons are but a fixture list. The coverage is tottaly routine. One of the sources even says they have agreed in principal no guarantee there. Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, but I don't really see it. I mean is anything 100% gonna happen tomorrow? I mean you're getting down to some real philosophical stuff.  CFB set up these long series to keep out the flux of having to scramble for games in the near future.  It is the nature of the beast.  Could a game get switched? Of course, but why should we let a "maybe" like that, take hostage a whole new series of wikipedia pages?  P G  Pirate  01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, when a game is scheduled and announced and subsequently rescheduled or cancelled, the change will probably continue to be noted in the article(s). For an example, see 2003 Eastern Michigan Eagles football team. cmadler (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question I've seen the word used a lot here: what is a "fixture" list?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For us Yankees: "a. a sports match or social occasion b.  the date of such an event"—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yes a fixture list is a list of dates set for sports games. We describe a game as a fixture therefore fixture list. It never occurred to me that term was British English only. Edinburgh   Wanderer  10:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, future games are often scheduled as part of a series, but that doesn't change the fact that they are "future." It also doesn't change the fact that suggestions to split this article are ultimately unwieldy and unfriendly to Wikipedia readers. Wrad (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please review the article, specifically the 2012 section. You will note that I have added some details about the history of games with schools on the list--an example of additional information that can be added to the list.  Editors more enthusiastic than me about the ECU program can (and likely will) add more and better such details over time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edits, should this article be renamed to East Carolina Pirates football opponents if the point is to discuss series with specific opponents, then all opponents—past, present and future–should be covered. I dont see why future opponents need a special article, but an article about all series with opponents past and future would be encyclopedic.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Worth considering, but that wasn't my intent.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we want to see whether future opponents are part of a series, we should just rename the article for general opponents. Of course it might initially only be populated with future opponents, but in time they will turn into past opponents.  If the article will just list future opponents on a per season basis, we should cut the red tape and just create the individual future season articles and delete this one.—Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point isn't to discuss series with opponents. The point is to provide future schedule information. This information is widely discussed in sports media and deserves its own article. I don't see why anyone would think that splitting all of this information up into a number of tiny articles would make anything any better. As it is, this article is concise, it is unified, it is well-cited, it provides a useful function and limits itself to that function. Scattering things around or making a big behemoth of an article covering every schedule for every year are both proposals that make zero sense to me. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It might not be your point, but the article creator,, wants it so "A reader is able to see if this is a one-time game or apart of a series." Recent edits by have added more historical information about series with individual future opponents.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would just like to make all of the editors here aware that this entire Afd was started by an editor who, judging by his own highly inappropriate and inflammatory comments on the Notre Dame future schedules Afd, has personal issues with what he deems to be "insignificant" sports teams. See this diff, where he rudely tells Paul McDonald "Don't you have some Kansas backyard NAIA teams to write about?" As a native Kansan, I find that comment extremely offensive, ignorant, and rude, while at the same time extremely effective at revealing the weak basis for this Afd. Wrad (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh hai straw man, I can haz Kansas pride back? So, tell me again what my other edit has to do with the merits of this debate? All I can see is a drastic resort by Wrad to breaking down another editor's character to strengthen his own argument. Tisk tisk. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your inflammatory comment stands on its own, my friend. How odd that rather than apologize and withdraw your comment, you only make more petty remarks and make the weakness of the reasoning behind this AfD even more obvious. Wrad (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Legitimately, I stopped caring about this AfD a couple days ago. It's been quasi-entertainment for a while now to see how voracious the keep !votes have been. Whether the outcome is delete, keep or no consensus, at the least there will be precedence on these types of articles, so that's good. You know why I stopped caring? I know there are more important things to worry about. Have fun with this, and similar other, AfDs. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment We have a pretty even split of arguments for keeping and deleting. We have calls to merge, move, and userfy. Clearly there is no consensus. I think the only reasonable end that can come out of this Afd mess is that it be closed and that everyone talk more about these kinds of articles at Wikiproject College Football, where people who know about the organization of such topics on Wikipedia can draw up guidelines for handling this sort of information without the nastiness of an Afd. Wrad (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with "no consensus." The keep !votes are absurdly reasoned and, I would argue, should be discounted.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it depends how the admin views the strength of the arguments. I think in its current state it would likely be brought back to AFD in the near future. I actually think that the above idea of opponents and then I would turn the current future fixtures into a lower section on organised fixtures would be much better and I certainly think with good sourcing it would pass more than routine coverage wouldn't just be a fixture list do personally I think that would have merit for being a standalone article. Obviously work needs done before that's the case.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  09:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha! Wouldn't that be convenient. I think the delete !votes are absurdly reasoned, but I'm not brash enough to say that they should all be discounted. Now THAT would be absurd! I strongly disagree with deleting, but I think some good ideas have come up on all sides here. I'm sure that the editors in this discussion who disagreed with you (half of the contributors to this page) would be glad to know that their opinions are so highly valued by you. Wrad (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is consensus that this information, when it is about major sports teams, is encyclopedic. Even under the strictest interpretation of GNG, the plans made for such purposes are discussed in reliable sources, and, when they do, WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. What I think there is still disagreement about is how it should be handled, : where it should go, and what we should title the articles.  DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be lying if I didn't say I'd go for that, too. Wrad (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: See below Per WP:GNG. Despite all of the smokescreen above about what policy to apply, it doesn't look like anyone actually critically checked the sources:
 * Source 1 verifies only the 2011-12 (and I accept that the 2012 season itself is close enough, reliable enough, etc., to have an article)
 * Sources 2,3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 are not independent of either ECU or the team being played against; they may be used for information, but do not establish notability.
 * Sources 5, 6, and 7 are being used only to verify past games, and thus do not speak towards the notability of the future games that are the subject of this article.
 * Source 11 is an opinion article, and thus not a reliable source for factual information, per WP:RS
 * Source 12 may be acceptable. It's a blog, but I think it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG. However, the source itself points out one of the flaws in the entire argument about these being contracted: it's all about arguments between two schools about whether they're even going to honor the contracts.
 * Source 13 appears to pass muster. However, it does not discuss the subject of the article in depth, mentioning ECU's game only in passing as part of a much larger list. Thus, it does meet the requirements of "in detail" set forth in WP:GNG
 * So, in summary, we have, maybe, 1 reliable, independent source that verifies that this is a notable topic, plus another that discusses it not in-depth. So, this article must be deleted per WP:GNG Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just would like to point out that this is one (of many) reasons why BYU and Notre Dame's future schedule articles should not be judged on this article's merits, as some have suggested. Neither of them have this problem. They are independent schools without set conference schedules, and thus their future matchups are considered more significant by the national news media than most schools, as evidenced by coverage by USA Today and ESPN. Wrad (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * is correct that there isnt enough independent coverage identified to satisfy GNG. The article is also an orphan. Readers used to the convention of "XXXX East Carolina Pirates football team" to get to a specific season will not find this article or the schedule they are looking for, and having to create redirects is yet another overhead this format will create. This article is already an orphan; do we realistically expect people will remember to also create proper redirects on top of that? And do we really want to have to guard against duplicate schedule information when the season article is inevitably created? Perhaps a point is being made, because I fail to see how having separate articles for each future season would not be more user-friendly and less unwieldy for readers and editors alike.  And if the intent is to also see a snapshot of a series with a specific opponent over many years, I fail to see why this article would limit itself to future opponents and not cover past opponents as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added it to East Carolina Pirates football navbox -- it should have already been there, and should be there if kept -- which means its no longer orphaned. cmadler (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be more unwieldy because it would be less information scattered around in more places. Wrad (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How? I am proposing article for each season, a standard convention, and another article (perhaps this one renamed and reformatted) to have a list of all opponents (past and future) and with series notes on each opponent.  Any other suggestions on items to be addressed?—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are all kinds of problems with that. First, would you support the creation of a 2020 East Carolina football article with one or two teams on it? Would that really get enough support on its own to avoid an AfD? Second, you are talking as though all games against opponents are played as part of a series. This is not the case. A lot of games that are scheduled are not part of a series at all. Thus, the article you are proposing would not be the neat and tidy, convenient article you seem to think it would. It would be a monster. Wrad (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would improve Wikipedia to assume that all future seasons on NCAA Div I FBS football teams are notable if any verifiable information exists.  supported this as well. I hope nobody doubts that sources will not eventually be identified to establish notability.  The alternative is a (IMO non-optimal) workaround like this article needs to be created and justified and discussed. The structure of an "opponents article" could use Oakland_Raiders as a strawman, where the year of the first meeting and series record is shown.  Columns could be added to note future commitments. The UCLA football's all-time opponents are neatly captured in one page on page 70 of its media guide. Size is not an issue, as we already have articles of all-time rosters of sports teams with hundreds of entries.—Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those examples provides even the most fundamental information provided in this article: information about who team x is playing in specific years and dates in the future, or whether they are playing them at home or away. We already have information like you are proposing in main team articles like Nebraska Cornhuskers football. Why should we split all of these off into separate articles? How does your proposal maintain the convenience of having one place to look at all future schedule information on one team? Wrad (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasnt trying to address "convenience of having one place to look at all future schedule", since this is the first I've heard it (apologies if I missed). Following is what people have asked for (feel free to add):
 * Opponents for a specific future season with venue information in one view (e.g. 2015 East Carolina Pirates football team)
 * Series information for an opponent (both past or future) in one article List of East Carolina Pirates football opponents)
 * Future opponents and venue information sorted by season in one article (e.g. East Carolina Pirates future football schedules)
 * Single article naming convention to access past and future season schedules (either actual article or redirect) (e.g. 2015 East Carolina Pirates football team)
 * A list of future opponents in team article is WP:UNDUE (e.g. East Carolina Pirates future football schedules or List of East Carolina Pirates football opponents)
 * I could live without the convenience of #3 for the benefit of #4, a standard naming of "XXXX East Carolina Pirates football team" for all seasons past and present and avoiding overhead of remembering to redirect and the different name format of #3. Series information, if notable, could be maintained by #2 with a separate article in the format of Oakland_Raiders with a column for notes added on future games.  Season articles named like #1 and #4 with the season's schedule anyways will exist eventually, and articles will or already exist (e.g. Nebraska example) that maintain information about series with opponents to satisfy #2 and #5. Consensus can decide if we want to support customized article for #3 with duplicate information exclusively for future opponents.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will tell you what I would support, and this might be something that could work for both Independent and non-Independent schools: What if we had an article like this one: [], that listed information on future seasons and served as a holder until the season became current? I would support that kind of look. It would keep the information convenient and it would also keep things conventional. Future season articles could be named conventionally and redirected to something like a "Future seasons of" page, which would have the same look and feel as current season articles, as per the link above. Wrad (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on 12/22, I think that would be better, and it should follow the naming convention SCHOOL MASCOT football future seasons (so this would be "East Carolina Pirates football future seasons"). cmadler (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And it goes without saying that schools without independently verifiable information about future seasons wouldn't have an article like this. Wrad (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course; I didn't think it needed to be said! cmadler (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not support creating holder articles when the actual specific season article can be created. Also points #2 and #4 are not addressed. People can desire this customized article with duplicated information, and consensus may deem it useful, but it is not needed as a holder.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what "duplicated information" you're seeing here. I don't see any in this proposal. If a season article can be created, then create it and move on! (Honestly, though, I think that you would be hard pressed to make a decent, separate season article until the previous season is over at least. Until then, information on future seasons should be kept together. That's how national news sources handle it. They discuss the future in broad terms in a lot of sources, but they don't say much about "next season" until the current season is over or almost over.) #2 is already handled elsewhere in article space and shouldn't be a part of the proposed page. I believe that my proposal directly addresses #4. "Future seasons of SCHOOL MASCOT football team" fits the naming convention well enough (or Cmadler's proposal, I honestly don't really think it matters) You can't call it "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" because the year range would keep on changing (from 2012-2023 to 2013-2025 to 2014-XXXX). We have a convention for "SCHOOL MASCOT football team" and so long as we stick to that that's good enough, I believe. Wrad (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care so much about the exact way it's named, but I think it should refer to "future seasons" rather than "future schedules". cmadler (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care so much about the exact way it's named, but I think it should refer to "future seasons" rather than "future schedules". cmadler (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

More on convention. My proposal would follow an established convention. I propose "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)" Observe:
 * Notre Dame Fighting Irish football (1960–1969)
 * Notre Dame Fighting Irish football (1980–1989)
 * Notre Dame Fighting Irish football (1990–1999)
 * Baylor Bears football (1980–1989)
 * Washington Huskies football, 1980–1989
 * Arkansas Razorbacks football, 1980–1989
 * Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham
 * Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Bob Davie
 * Georgia Bulldogs football under Vince Dooley
 * USC Trojans football under John McKay
 * Oklahoma Sooners football under Bob Stoops

It's just as legitimate a convention as any other.

So here's re-clarification of the proposal. For schools that can provide independent sources for such articles, we allow articles with the naming convention "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)." This article takes on the (general pattern of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football (1990–1999) or Baylor Bears football (1980–1989). Once an individual season gets enough source material to merit its own article, it is split off into a new article and all information on that season is removed from the "(upcoming seasons)" article. No duplication, no unverifiable information, no naming-convention breaking. Everyone goes home happy. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we create "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" for each single future season to satisfy #1 and #4, and assuming #2 is created, #3 would duplicate information in the earlier articles. "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" is supposed to be about a single year, like "2015 SCHOOL MASCOT football team". Regarding your comment of "they don't say much about 'next season' until the current season is over or almost over.": East Carolina Pirates future football schedules has verified info for 2012–2018. That is more than just "next season". As for naming convention of "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team", if "2015 SCHOOL MASCOT football team" doesnt exist, but "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)" does as you propose, someone needs to create the redirect, an overhead I'd rather avoid. #4 otherwise fails because there are two formats a user needs to know: "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" for past teams, and "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)" for future seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, if you look closely at East Carolina's article here, if we made a 2018 article or even a 2013 article, they really wouldn't have much on their own, let's be honest. 2012 might have enough for an article if someone did some real digging. As I said, then, we need an article that talks about the big picture, and, when an individual season gets enough independent sources, we follow suit and split the article off.
 * Redirects really aren't that hard. Besides, the convention is already there to support it. Just type in 1981 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team for one of many, many examples.
 * I'm still at a total loss as to how my proposal duplicates anything. Wrad (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We might agree to disagree on this point, but I think future season articles are inherently notable, even with minimal sources today. My earlier comment: "I think it would improve Wikipedia to assume that all future seasons on NCAA Div I FBS football teams are notable if any verifiable information exists. Muboshgu supported this as well. I hope nobody doubts that sources will not eventually be identified to establish notability." If the individual "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" articles for 2012, 2013, etc are created, "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)" would have duplicate information from the individual seasons.  While either way could work and I could say either approach is a tie, I give the tie-breaker to the fact that "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" will eventually be created once 2012, 2013, etc rolls around.—Bagumba (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing is inherently notable, Bagumba. Take a look at WP:Notability, where it says: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition." Notability is determined by the presence of independent sources. Until sources exist to support individual future year articles, we cannot justify those article's existence. Wrad (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fifth pillar of Wikipedia says "Wikipedia does not have firm rules ... The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule." I believe a recurring event that will receive coverage such as an NCAA Div I FBS football team's season is that exception.  Aside from the fine print of GNG wanting source now, does anyone believe otherwise that it is not notable?  We dont need to be ultra-conservative in the event a few schools goes on probation, or the NFL decides to run a semi-pro league to replace college football, the public boycotts the sport due to numerous concussions, etc.  The seasons will be notable almost as assuredly as the sun will rise tomorrow and the day after that. While I can appreciate erring on the side of GNG almost in every case, I think a CYA approach of creating an admitted holding article merely to circumvent guidelines is an inefficient method to get verifiable information about individual future seasons into Wikipedia.  If we are to follow the letter of the law, 's point of needing independent sources for this article is hard to refute. However, the point is moot if we agree that individual future season are inherently notable.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Another IAR argument. Yes, it is possible to ignore all rules, but usually it is discouraged, and this is one of those times that it should be discouraged. Kindly point out exactly which guidelines are being "circumvented" in my proposal. Be specific. Provide direct quotes. Whether you want to call something a holding article or anything else, if it has independent, verifiable sources, it has a right to exist on Wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian's earlier points on independent sources establishing notability. While the two of us won't reach a common understanding on this AfD, I think our positions and rationales are—if nothing else—clear now. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you carefully read my proposal, you will read that my suggestion is: "For schools that can provide independent sources for such articles, we allow articles with the naming convention "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)." Thus, Qwyrxian's points are moot here. No guidelines are being circumvented in my proposal. Period. Wrad (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, I think you're ignoring the fact that combining multiple past seasons into a single article is allowed, and even encouraged when there is little information on the individual seasons. This is what Wrad pointed out with the above links. For example, 1961 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team currently redirects to the mostly-empty Notre Dame Fighting Irish football (1960–1969). At some point that article will get filled in, and we eventually may have so much information on the 1961 team that the information will get pushed off and the redirect will be turned into a real article. I think Wrad is simply suggesting that we apply the same principle to future seasons. cmadler (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not being ignored, its a compromise based on points #1–5 in my 20:31, 11 January 2012 comment. The article as-is is IMO inefficient–even if "allowed".  Right or wrong, upcoming seasons articles are more likely to be filled than seasons from decades past. There's fewer of them, people get caught up in the present, and Wikipedia only started relatively recently. The approach for past seasons makes sense, since those standalone articles may be created whereas future seasons will be created.  Any approach may not be perfect;  what we need to do is get a wish list together, which I itemized in the 5 points, and be aware of any compromises we are making. Let's be clear that the status quo itself is not perfect either.  Its up to consensus from here.  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It would be far more inefficient (not to mention a violation of Wikipedia policy) to split this article into half a dozen tiny little articles, as Bagumba has proposed. I'm getting a little tired, as I'm sure many of the people involved here are, of people demanding that we all ignore Wikipedia policy so they can get what they want. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It would be convenient if you would all stop this discussion here, and focus on the article in question, because the article in question does not meet our minimum notability guidelines. This discussion belongs either on an article where it's relevant, or at some centralized place.  Also, I would personally appreciate it if those commenting above would consider changing their !votes to account for the fact that this article is not well-sourced as claimed.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This article has been nominated as part of a group and we need to discuss it as part of that group. That discussion started here and it needs to continue here. I don't want to (possibly) change my vote until we have an agreement on how to handle these kinds of articles. I feel like an agreement of that kind is absolutely necessary before this AfD can be resolved. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Qwyrxian, I dont agree. This is a discussion on what to do with the information in this article. While it is conventionally a !vote of whether to keep or delete, it can be also result in moves.  In this case, it could be a delete, but move into multiple articles.  If this was merely about presentation of the current article with no deletions needed, I would not be discussing this here.  Someone can close this AfD and force it to be discussed elsewhere, but not much will be gained by having to jump start this again on another talk page or in a future AfD or worse yet dropping an active discussion where deletion is still being discussed.  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one should be moving this information anywhere, unless it's maybe to the big article East Carolina Pirates football. No matter what name you give it, none of these future seasons has been shown to be notable, because none of them have been discussed in multiple, independent, reliable sources.
 * Also, this Afd was not nominated as part of a group. The AfD's are not bundled, so each one must be considered separately on its own merits. They may even all be closed by different admins. This page is only for discussion of the possible deletion of East Carolina Pirates future football schedules.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As part of this specific AfD, several people have suggested a move or a merger. That is a legitimate AfD discussion and we're going to have it and we are having it. Wrad (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Alright, Qwyrxian, you've awakened the WikiDragon! I have added a number of new references, all of them independent, all of them to official news sources. This article now has 22 citations. I would suggest that anyone who !voted "delete" over WP:GNG or a lack of reliable sources (or for any reason, for that matter) take another long look at this and reconsider. Wrad (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my GNG objection. Part of me wants to make the IAR objection, because to me it seems just ridiculously obvious that this article and the word "encyclopedia" don't belong in the same sentence...heck, in the same page. I don't understand how this beats WP:CRYSTAL, when we have an actual source in the article telling us that different parties agree about whether the contracts will even be followed. But, whatever...fighting a battle against sports enthusiasts is a waste of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:WABBITSEASON--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2012 (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.