Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records (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 delete.  Sandstein  09:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

A previous AfD in 2016 was determined as no consensus. As argued in three similar, successful AfDs in 2016—Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Hawkeyes football series records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wildcats football series records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records—this list details statistics of minor note. Such as Notre Dame vs Buffalo (whom they've never played), or Notre Dame vs Georgia (as their record being winless against the Bulldogs.) Some sources such as "winsipedia" are unreliable and programs such as Creighton and Notre Dame aren't a specific case compared to Texas, Alabama etc. But these lists have been determined to fail WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall under the same category and type:


 * Delete both Notre Dame and Creighton lists per nominator, first AfD nomination for Notre Dame, and related AfDs such as Articles for deletion/Iowa Hawkeyes football series records. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep article is well researched and sourced from multiple distinct sources. Notre Dame is a historically noteworthy independent team. Other related pages (Texas, Alabama, etc.) were not well sourced. Creighton pages should be deleted on those grounds. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There sourcing available for these records is more or less equivalent for all major programs. The fact that the Texas and Alabama articles may not have been properly cited was not and would not be a reason to delete them.  The reason to delete them was that the subject was not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.  The same is true for Notre Dame.  Notre Dame is no more noteworthy than Alabama or Michigan, programs for which congruent lists were deleted. Jweiss11 (talk)
 * This is simply not true. The sourcing available is NOT equivalent to other major programs. Please look at the sources cited in the article and compare to sources for other teams. The list is notable otherwise there would not be such sources that are various and numerous. It is not like the records of Creighton and UMass. Could arguments be made for that Alabama and Michigan should have similar pages? I think so though there are fewer available sources for those teams despite being major programs. I did not think those articles should be deleted back then either. In any case, sources on Notre Dame tend to discuss their history and their independent scheduling more than other schools. It is a bit unique in that respect. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * These really should be separate nominations because they are separate article types. Keep the ND article clearly sourced, high volume of third party independent articles, passes WP:GNG and it's to the point that it seems disruptive to even nominate an article so well sourced.  Delete Creighton list as it shows no sources-- while I'm sure some can be found, we can bring it back if and when it's ready.  No prejudice to re-create or merge the Creighton data to another suitable page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is disruptive to try and promote community consensus on these articles established by WP:CFB here, and here? The rationale confirmed by previous AfDs for Texas here and Iowa, Alabama, and Michigan here. Besides isn't that what rivalry articles are for?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also for what it's worth see Articles for deletion/Tampa Bay Buccaneers Records.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * UCO2009bluejay, no, please do so. That's the sort of higher-level consistency we all ought to be promoting. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete You are correct, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" applies here. Policy beats guideline and I stand corrected.  What we have here is an article that could be sourced to the nth degree and pass WP:GNG but fails other measures.  Thanks for pointing that out!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination is not based on WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. As I've outlined below, in response to your raising it, NOTSTATSBOOK is inapplicable to the Notre Dame list. Moreover, its application here sets a dangerous precedent. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dad gummit… I'm recusing myself completely from this one, I can't even stick to my own choice! But I'll follow...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete the Creighton list; that part is easy. May weigh in later on the ND list. Cbl62 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the Notre Dame list as well. However, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is NOT a valid basis for deleting in this case. The purpose of NOTSTATSBOOK is to require context for stats and to avoid pure data dumps.  It explicitly states: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."  Here, the Notre Dame list is in a table, is very readable, and includes the type of explanatory text and context that NOTSTATBOOK prescribes. Moreover, if NOTSTATSBOOK was a valid basis for deleting statistical listings regardless of notability, it could be used to support deletion of highly notable statistical lists such as: List of college football coaches with 200 wins, List of NCAA football records, List of NCAA Division I FBS running backs with at least 5,000 rushing yards, List of NCAA Division I FBS career rushing yards leaders etc.  IMO, the real issue is not whether such lists are precluded under NOTSTATSBOOK. Rather, the real issues here are whether the lists satisfy WP:LISTN and whether we ought to exercise editorial judgment to opt against a stand-alone list/article.  In this case, I favor exercising editorial judgment to avoid such lists for two reasons. First, the data at issue is massive (particularly if such lists were to proliferate for dozens of college football programs) and changes with great frequency -- resulting in an enormous and probably unsustainable task in updating such lists on an ongoing basis.  Second, the identical data sets are published off Wikipedia by organizations (e.g., SR/College Football here) that are better equipped to perform regular automated updates of the data. Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete both per nom and per previous similar AfDs. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Echoing my earlier comment from the first AfD: "For the record, I voted "Keep" on the first of these AfD's, however, the widespread community consensus was crystal clear to delete this entire class of articles, as evidenced in the links above. If we're going to do that, then, IMHO, we should go ahead and do it, and not create some sort of special "Notre Dame exception" to that existing consensus. Basically, we either need to delete this one or un-delete all of the other ones; and, at this point, I don't really care which one we do, just so long as we're consistent about doing it." In addition, I feel it's worth pointing out that there's nothing different between this Notre Dame article and the Michigan, Texas, and Alabama (etc.) ones that already got deleted. In reality, this should have been a bundled nomination of this entire class of articles to start with (I believe the only reason it wasn't was part of some sort of Dirtlawyer "strategy" of nominating articles individually to try to get the most number of articles deleted). Also, it might be worth noting that the first AfD for this had a couple of odd irregularities, as I noted in this comment. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2019 (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.