Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Midshipmen football results


 * 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 redirect to Navy Midshipmen football . Feel free to change redirects, etc. Thanks everyone for the discussion. Missvain (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Navy Midshipmen football results

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has been suggested as unwieldy and large. Information for each year has now been split and copied to each individual team year page. Each year will then be referenced and formatted according other team year articles. No other college football team has an article with entire football results written like this....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Save. I have always liked having it all on one reference page instead of having to jump from page to page to cross-reference information. Msr_iaidoka (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2015 (EDT)


 * , the problem is that this list is not formatted or sorted correctly, and it's incongruous with how we've treated the histories of other college football programs. Perhaps you would like to have this list userfied? Jweiss11 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Msr_iaidoka, we typically have a complete list of the seasons of major college football programs, such as List of Florida Gators football seasons. Unfortunately, List of Navy Midshipmen football seasons has not yet been created.  If the present reorganization of Navy football season articles had been better organized, this article might have been converted to such a list, thereby preserving its edit history, etc.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * DL, I'm not sure what the value of saving the edit history is since there really isn't any salvageable text there, but if anyone would like to convert this article into a season list, that could certainly be done and would obviate the need for this AfD. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Because the 100+ new single-season articles were created by simple copy-pasting from this original, there's also the problem of internal Wikipedia attribution and copyvio. The article creator was warned about this issue on his talk page by another editor, but proceeded with copy-paste article creation anyway.  It appears most rank-and-file editors are willing to ignore this, but the attribution problem is further complicated when the original article history is deleted.  I may consult with another editor or two who are better versed in Wikipedia attribution policy.  Technically, no text is supposed to be copy-pasted verbatim from one Wikipedia article to another without proper attribution of the source.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did mention where I copied the individual seasons and wrote that in the edit summary. I couldn't think of another way to save the info if this article is deleted.  The List of xxx team football seasons is nowhere close to similar format and text as this article, but would agree this would be a nice way to save the article....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * DL, internal Wikipedia attribution and copyvio? Beside that fact that that's incredibly pedantic for tables of football scores, all those tables are eventually going to be replaced with properly formatted tables. And I wasn't talking about the individual season articles.  Let me restate my question: what would the value be of having a new List of Navy Midshipmen football seasons article incorporate the edit history of Navy Midshipmen football results? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pedantic," perhaps, but it is also official Wikipedia policy, not just a guideline, JW. And it is something with which a senior editor with 10 years of on-wiki experience, and a senior role within the WikiProject, should be intimately familiar.  I urge you to review Copying within Wikipedia; if you aren't already familiar with its requirements and exceptions, you should be.  All Wikipedia text that is subject to copyright under U.S. law and subsequently used for article-to-article copy-pasting or cut-and-pasting must be properly attributed to the original Wikipedia creator in order for the Creative Commons license for free use to be effective.  That probably does not apply to pure statistical tables, but it does apply to text notes within the stats tables to the extent they are subject to copyright.


 * As for the eventual replacement of copyright violations on-wiki, that doesn't cut it. All copyright violations, whether for external content quoted on-wiki, or article-to-article transfers, are subject to immediate deletion.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The creation of individual season articles obviates the need for this.  My vote is without prejudice to someone creating a standard "list Navy Midshipmen team football seasons" article. Cbl62 (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, and not even necessary given individual season articles. ~ RobTalk 14:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the present AfD discussions, NOTSTATSBOOK is a two-edged sword, and can be just as easily used to justify the deletion of the 100+ no-prose articles that were copy-pasted and split from this one on July 11 and 12. The 1887 Navy Midshipmen football article under separate AfD discussion now includes sourced-text that was added after that AfD began; the other 100+ newly navy football season articles created at the same time do not.  Frankly, I don't want to keep this article in its present form, either, but the 100+ no-prose copy-paste splits from it are equally unacceptable.  It's a mess, and we should be arguing about how to fix the overall situation, not individual articles.  If this AfD results in a "delete" outcome, that leaves us with a fait accompli of 100+ no-prose articles, which have a raft of problems.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted in the other deletion discussion, I agree that the no-prose splits are just as problematic. My preferred solution is to PROD the lot of them. If someone cares to quickly clean them up and add prose, they can de-PROD. Otherwise, they can be recreated at a later date when editors have time to add prose. I don't feel the need for this information to be preserved in some way in an article in the meantime if it violates policy. ~ RobTalk 16:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I see this as procedural because the article information should be included in other articles. It seems unwieldy to me in its current state.  no problem moving it to user space until the data is integrated.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion Any thoughts of changing this to a redirect to Navy Midshipmen football in order to save edit history?....Pvmoutside (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't object. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 13:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm good with redirect too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2015 (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.