Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. J04n(talk page) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Future football schedules. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. The logic of WP:FUTURE applies as well. GrapedApe (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. This is not the place for this sort of information, which is easily available on the net. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not the right place for this kind of information. This article is also a violation of crystal ball rule, WP is not a crystal ball. Future schedules articles receives a lot of pov and if-statements. Eduemoni↑talk↓  21:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - To address the previous comments:
 * 1. This is not "trivia." Future schedules are legitimate and necessary sources of reference for anyone with an interest in such events; including, but not limited to: alumni, season-ticket holders, casual fans, and/or researchers attempting to gauge the future direction of the program. "Trivia" is a random collection of indiscriminate facts with no collective purpose. (See WP:DISCRIMINATE)
 * 2. Regarding Wikipedia's "Crystal Ball" policy, it states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. [...] A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." These events are certainly notable, as they pertain to a sports team with a nationwide fan base, affiliation with a national broadcast network, and an annual profit of over $43 million. The schedule information is verifiable as every single entry has been meticulously sourced.
 * 3. Nothing in this article represents a "point of view." Everything is factual and sourced.
 * 4. "This is not the place for this sort of information, which is easily available on the net." Simply not a true statement.  One can see from the plethora of necessary sources that an individual could spend hours if not days scouring the Internet in an attempt to collect all of this information.
 * 5. Almanacs are printed for handy reference to dates of future events in lists precisely like this one... and one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars states that Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis mine) Therefore, this is exactly the sort of notable information that is appropriate for Wikipedia, and if this page is deleted no other similar compendium exists.
 * 6. This article was already nominated for deletion last year and the consensus was 4-1 in favor of keeping it (with three votes that were mixed/ambiguous). All of those arguments still apply. Nothing about the content of the article has changed in the interim.  Why are we rehashing this again?  Do those in favor of deletion just get to keep forcing a vote over and over again until they get the result they want? -- Trowbridge (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep there is nothing indiscriminate about this list, per WP:DISCRIMINATE. It specifically focuses on future football scheduling for Notre Dame football.  The list is clearly organized, structured, up-to-date, well-kept, informative, and (gasp) widely discussed in the national media as the boatload of sources provide.  Sources are reliable and information can be verified.  Also, this does not violate WP:CRYSTAL because the future schedule has actually been announced.  While there may be changes in the schedule, there is no speculation or guesswork here on the part of editors.  Further, the topic clearly passes WP:GNG due to its wide discussion in national media.  There have been no new arguments introduced to delete, and if anything the article is better than it was the last time we had this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete with possible Merge with Notre Dame Fighting Irish football or even split/userfy-transform into primordial separate season articles. As is, it is a non-notable rotating calendar of future scheduled events that is not encyclopedic per nomination. This article is also duplicative with 2013 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. The authors would be better off creating individual future season articles that would contain permanent information. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I sound cynical, but thus far all of the votes in favor of deletion have been arbitrary statements in the form of WP:Just unencyclopedic or WP:Not notable. I'm not seeing any arguments in favor of deletion. Not to mention that the nomination itself uses only WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FUTURE as the basis, both of which (IMHO) have clearly been shown to be misapplied. -- Trowbridge (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I am somewhat new to editing Wikipedia articles. Although I was initially stunned that this webpage would be considered for deletion due to its usefulness and the importance of the information it provides many people, I feel that after researching Wikipedia policy that this web page is absolutely appropriate Wikipedia content.
 * -The original arguments for deletion include that the page is an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia, WP future logic (crystal ball rule) is violated, this is not an encyclopedic topic, and the information is easily found on the “net.” The argument that “future schedules articles receives a lot of pov and if-statements” is a generalization and does not apply to the article in question, as anyone would realize that read the article. I have now taken the time to become familiar with Wikipedia policy and I believe a neutral observer can only come to the conclusion that the page is not sports trivia, it follows specified Wikipedia policy concerning future events, is appropriate anticipated encyclopedic content, and all of the information is NOT easily found on the “net” on one webpage, other than this Wikipedia page.
 * -First, the definition of trivia pertains to insignificant matters. If one believes that Notre Dame football or its future games are insignificant, one obviously has no knowledge on the general subject of college football and should therefore recuse oneself from this current deletion discussion.
 * -Specifically referencing “Crystal ball” rules (which is the same as WP: Future logic), current policy states “all articles about anticipated events must be verifiable,” which the article in question heavily relies on a multitude of different independent websites, news organizations, and university pages to bring all of the verifiable information into one easily viewable and referenced form to provide anticipated game information dissemination to those seeking it on the internet.
 * -The content on the webpage is worthy of an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia policy states for future events, “the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.” There are many current Wikipedia pages that pertain to Notre Dame football games that have already occurred and the interest in Notre Dame football is as popular as college football is itself. Further Wikipedia policy states, “individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.” Nearly all, if not all, of the scheduled games on the Wikipedia webpage will occur, with actual fan attendance expected at a minimum of 60,000 people, and millions more watching the games live on broadcast television would definitely count as notable. The policy pertaining to sports teams schedules specifically state to “avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative.” The Notre Dame scheduled games referenced in the article are verifiable and not speculative as individual agreements and contracts with specific teams and the ACC have been signed and widely reported upon. Wikipedia specifically states, “a schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.” I don’t think I have to state again that the games are independently verified with a multitude of sources.
 * -In terms of if this information is easily found on the “net”, I would not have wasted nearly a hundred hours researching Notre Dame future schedules for the past 6 months to provide this information for everyone that wants it and needs it to plan their future if I found it all on one page to begin with.
 * -The 2013 schedule will be deleted from this page, when appropriate, as it will become the current football schedule in the upcoming season and therefore not a future schedule.
 * -The only question I have about this delection discussion is why actual people are wasting their time trying to delete this content when it has already undergone consideration for deletion and was deemed appropriate? This current deletion discussion is circuitous and Wikipedia should improve policy to prevent such events from occuring in the future for this webpage and others that undergo the same needless repeated deletion discussion.

--Raddok (talk) 4:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, User:Trowbridge canvassed for votes here, here, here and here. Most had voted keep in the original AFD and one is a primary contributor to the article in question. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Canvassing I was one of them, but I didn't think anything of it because I constantly monitor the American Football deletion sorting and this page itself, so I would have gotten here anyway and would have provided the same response I did above. Many people think so, but I don't hold to the believe that "canvassing" is a crime.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Bigtime Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Filibustering going on up in here.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please encourage full discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. Content is notable and verifiable, but not substantive enough to warrant its own article. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge. The content of this list/article should be included in a "Future non-conference opponents" section of the parent Notre Dame Fighting Irish football article, as is the case for the overwhelming majority of other Division I FBS team articles.  I note that this article is one of only four or five remaining CFB "future schedules" lists; in all other instances, similar material has been merged/incorporated directly into the parent article regarding the particular CFB team.  And for the record, I also share the WP:CRYSTAL concerns expressed by others above.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.