Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970 Whitewater State Warhawks football team

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. Geschichte (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Whitewater State Warhawks football team

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious move to mainspace of a draft which contains nothing but a table of routine matches and a generic lead which doesn't provide much encyclopedic information (the fact that it is basically an exact copy of the infobox, but in prose, tells you everything). A WP:RUNOFTHEMILL collegiate football team season which fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTSTATS, and even doesn't meet any of the suggested cutoffs of WP:NSEASONS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks football. Fails WP:GNG. This is an article about a low-level college football team with a mediocre 6–4 record and no championship or other notable accomplishments. Even high school football teams get some SIGCOV, but we don't allow season articles on high school seasons. IMO a run-of-the-mill NAIA season is a step above high school football, but we still should not encourage season articles about each and every run-of-the-mill NAIA season. There is an IP user (@65.30.134.209:) who is creating these articles on Whitewater seasons. I would encourage them to focus on the exceptional Whitewater seasons and building those seasons into high-quality articles. Alternatively, consider creating grouped articles on Whitewater football by decade (or by head coach tenure) as suggested in WP:NSEASONS, bullet point five. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, I agree we shouldn't have articles on HS and most NAIA seasons. However, Whitewater seems to get much significant coverage (which can be found in the article) in several different papers (locality is completely irrelevant) which makes me lean towards keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in favor of an extensive sidebar discussion about what is best for Wikipedia on college football season articles. I would expect that discussions would cover various divisions, NCAA v NAIA, NJCAA, pre-NCAA history, etc. We'd probably look at guidelines and alternatives and talk a lot about WP:IAR. If we just go with WP:GNG. A turbo-enthusiastic editor with research capabilities could probably find extensive coverage for many season articles but I'm not sure that is the best thing for Wikipedia. As to this particular article, I'm presently uncertain.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that such a discussion would be useful. My view is that we consider stricter guidelines for low level seasons (e.g., limit such articles to national or conference champions). If we can't police ourselves, it invites attention from those not as familiar with college football who would be inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater. E.g., RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible solution (and one consistent with WP:NSEASONS) for lower division seasons would be (a) to strictly limit stand-alone articles to truly exceptional seasons (with a discussion to be had on what qualifies as exceptional) (b) while encouraging well-sourced grouped articles based on coaching tenure or decade. Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per cited sources. This season is on the same plane of significance as 1968 Whitewater State Warhawks football team, which Cbl62 nominated for deletion and then withdrew after agreeing that it was notable. That being said, I agree with the Cbl's recommendation to the IP user. I also support Paul McDonald's recommendation for the extensive sidebar discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the cited sources is SIGCOV. They're either match reports from right after the events, including interviews (we don't consider these SIGCOV for pro leagues, I don't see why all of a sudden they're acceptable for collegiate sports, and stuff like "Coach Was Right—Warhawks Are Good" certainly puts a dent into the notion that these are truly independent sources) or database entries. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, that reads as "I don't like football". Please focus on something more productive than these spurious AfDs. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If people are willing to accept sources which are obviously not independent (like "Coach Was Right-Warhawks Are Good") or which are obvious routine match reports as being SIGCOV, then Wikipedia has a larger problem with sports than I expected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Coach Was Right-Warhawks Are Good" is an article published by the Wisconsin State Journal and written by a sportswriter on their staff. Unless you're arguing that the second-largest newspaper in Wisconsin is in the pocket of an out-of-town state college, that's definitely an independent source. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, sports journalists often write congratulatory or celebratory things about the teams and people they cover. This doesn't make them not independent from those sports entities. The idea that the Wisconsin State Journal is not independent from the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater is absurd. I'm also dismayed that you've taken my admonishment above and initiated yet another spurious AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1977 South Dakota Coyotes football team). Jweiss11 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything I said in my !vote on the AfD for the 1967 season applies here too, but suffice it to say that the sources cited in the article qualify as significant coverage in multiple independent sources, as required by GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't address the NOT or the RUNOFTHEMILL issues, There must be something unusual, something unique about the subject so that the article does not just read blank is blank (which would essentially be a dictionary entry) and that it does not resemble hundreds of other articles by containing mostly the same words with a few fill-in-the-blanks. In effect, this article does "resemble thousands of others" - I could probably copy-paste the Year Run-of-the-mill sports team from here, since that eloquently proves my point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:MILL is an essay, and second, every college football season has different games with different plays and different results. If we have sources that document in detail what happened in those games, as we do in this case, we can write summaries of what happened in each of those games and the narrative around the season. That narrative hasn't been written for this article yet, but being an underdeveloped stub isn't a valid reason for deletion. As for the argument I think you're making with WP:NOT, again, we have the source material to write prose summaries of each game and a broader narrative of the season, and those go well beyond mere statistics. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep latest revisions and research have produced a good number of third party articles that surpass the general notability guideline and provide a good amount of prose to the article, clearly exceeding the NOTSTATS standard. I'm not swayed by the argument on the "run-of-them-mill" essay--upon close examination, it looks to me like this article meets the standard for inclusion in that essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31. This article meets the threshold for significant coverage established by GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. The team's record is irrelevant if there are enough sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing improved significantly since nomination, appears to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources, passes WP:GNG. This is another POINTy nomination by this user. Spf121188 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.