Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Golden Gophers football under Jim Wacker


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota Golden Gophers football under Jim Wacker

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Content fork. Delete and merge into Jim Wacker. Blueboy96 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This should not be moved onto the Jim Wacker page.  This page is a season-by-season rundown of the Gopher football team while it was coached by Wacker, with each season listing every individual game played - it's about the team, not about the coach himself.  Wacker's article is currently 12K in size and this page is 34K - do we really want to quadruple the size of the page with all of the new content dealing with only 5 of his 21 years as a coach?  The correct solution is to expand the "Minnesota" section of the Jim Wacker page so that it has more than two sentences of information and leave this page alone


 * This style of page ("Team X football under Coach Y") is designed to replace pages for individual seasons of teams. Having this page replaces having a separate page for the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 Gopher football teams.Gopherguy | Talk 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not convinced. It can easily be condensed into a few paragraphs on Wacker's page.  Blueboy96 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure - we could come up with a condensed version to put on Wacker's page, but even if we do that, this page should stand on its own. It's an entry covering the football teams that played under Jim Wacker, not an entry about Wacker himself.  I am very against removal of any of the information on that page.  In fact, over time, I intend to add more information to it.  If I want to know about the 1994 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team, that page holds the information I want.  We could condense the page on Saturn to say only that it's the sixth planet in the solar system and it has rings, but why would we delete all of the other interesting and important information in that article?  I don't want to see Wikipedia become like USA Today with small, bite sized listings that really don't tell you very much.Gopherguy | Talk 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree as well. Minnesota, as a major college football team, has certain level of credibility to their history.  Could this info be condensed into a few paragraphs on Wacker's page?  Yes.  But this isn't about Wacker, this is about the years coached by the Golden Gophers under Jim Wacker.  For if this page isn't worth while, why should any history page on college football serve function.  This same article was once brought up as a candidate to merge directly into the Minnesota Golden Gophers football page, and it was defeated. The discussion on notability came up previously in the discussion of the WikiProject College football here, where the tendancy seems to describe to allowing this page (and pages like it) to stay. -Colslax (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above (especially the link to the notability discussion from the college football WikiProject) and per WP:Summary style. Although Jim Wacker isn't a long article, someone looking at his article does not need the level of detail that this article goes into. A coach article should have short sections on each of his jobs with appropriate links to the main articles of each. If the content were to be merged into his article it would overwhelm the rest of the article. (Also, the nominator meant to link to WP:CFORK in the nomination, WP:FORK is different). Phydend (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above and per discussion in Wikiproject:College Football. Seancp (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the article reflects a Wikiproject College Football consensus on formatting and methodology to comprehensively address teams' season history for seasons that may not be sufficiently notable for individual articles. AU Tiger » talk 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CFB previous justification of these types of articles, and Seancp, Autiger and Phydend. MECU ≈ talk 19:31, 9 December 2007 (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.