Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Southeastern Conference football standings (1992–present)


 * 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 keep. The consensus here is that this article doesn't violate WP:NOTESAL or WP:DIRECTORY. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Southeastern Conference football standings (1992–present)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

per WP:NOTESAL and WP:DIRECTORY –Aidan721 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is useful summation of notable college football standings. The list needs an expanded lead section to properly introduce and contextualize the data in the body of the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep I'm on the same page as Jweiss11. The article could (and should) see a bit of expansion but it's notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this page not redundant to List of Southeastern Conference football champions? –Aidan721 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * they cover some of the same information but there are distinct differences. The templates on the nominated page include the standings of all the teams in the conference and not just who won it. These templates also include the information about where the teams ranked nationally at the end of the season. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aidan721, certainly not redundant. List of Southeastern Conference football champions details only the conference and division champs. It doesn't detail full standings and records. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What is so significant about the list of standings and records? Those are covered in the individual season pages, and pages such as List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons. This is merely a list of templates. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Just wanted to point out there's another article for the seasons prior to 1992 at List of Southeastern Conference football standings (1933–1991). I mention it because the two should probably be nominated together since the deletion discussion would follow the same course. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only the earlier SEC list, but there is a slew of analogous lists for other conferences, e.g. List of American Athletic Conference football standings. See Category:College football standings for the full scope. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nominator, this list violates WP:NOTESAL and WP:DIRECTORY. The most important thing for these years is who won, which we have a valid separate article about - we don't need complete standings for every season in a separate article, as Wikipedia is not a stats directory. Also support deletion of List of Southeastern Conference football standings (1933–1991) for the same reason. Adding a bit of prose to it wouldn't take away from the fact it doesn't meet our guidelines for a stand-alone list. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the argument about WP:NOTDIRECTORY just doesn't apply here, because frankly the article in question is ... well... not a directory. Specifically, the article in question does not apply to any measure in NOTDIRECTORY:  Simple listings; Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics; Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations; Genealogical entries; Electronic program guide; nor A resource for conducting business.  As for WP:NOTESAL, the criteria in that guideline is passed-specifically, Notability "is based on the group."  The season standings of the Southestern Conference football program may be trivial to some or to many, but those seasons have also garnered WP:SIGCOV from a multitude of independent, third party sources.  Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and many regional and national newspapers are easily solid examples of passing WP:GNG.  I'm unsure why the page was nominated, and I've read the reasons; the reasons just don't seem to fit to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The standings themselves are not non-notable, it's the list of standings (that are already grouped together in a category) that is not notable. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that categories are not a substitute for lists and that these standings templates are grouped together at Category:Southeastern Conference football standings templates, a template category, which is considered an administrative element and " not part of the encyclopedia". Jweiss11 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Aidan721. It looks to me that both the individual season standings and the list of the standings are notable.  That they are grouped in two different articles for better management of content is simply an editing decision.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jweiss11 and Paulmcdonald. Valid topic for a list article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot add anything beyond what's been said above other than I think consensus has been met here and the discussion should be closed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am not seeing any guidelines or policies violated by this article. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Sportsfangnome (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2022 (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.