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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. My WP:BEFORE efforts were lacking. Users Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11 have added sufficient SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Whitewater State Warhawks football team[edit]

1968 Whitewater State Warhawks football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails both WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. 1968 Whitewater was a run-of-the-mill team (6–3–1 record) playing in the NAIA -- i.e., the lowest level of college football. The article lacks any independent sourcing, and my searches failed to locate any WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a bunch of reliable, third-party sourcing to the article. I found lots of significant coverage from papers all over Wisconsin just for the first two games of the season. That first game surely got lots of coverage in West Virginia papers too, but West Virginia seems to be conspicuously absent from Newspapers.com. I'm sure similar coverage can be found for the remaining games. I understand that this is an NAIA season, but in 1968 NAIA play was highly interlaced with that of the NCAA College Division, with many teams and conferences apparently holding membership in both associations. Coverage of the subject certainly looks as extensive as say 1941 DePauw Tigers football team, created by nominated. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solid research by Jweiss11. My searches did not turn up much. That said, I still have doubts about creating stand-alone articles for routine, non-exceptional seasons at the lowest level of college football. The college football project needs to exercise discretion as to when and where season articles are warranted. There is a move afoot to enforce WP:NSEASONS more aggressively (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team), and if we don't exercise some restraint, others will likely come in and seek to impose a form of restraint that we find far more troubling. As for DePauw, WP:OSE is on point. Cbl62 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, WP:OSE is a red herring, as it almost always is when invoked in discussions like these, as you right here have drawn comparison to "other stuff" like 2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team. Consistent standards across the encyclopedia matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern in making this nom is that the community has demonstrated (e.g., at 2019 Ohio State soccer team) that it will not tolerate indiscriminate creation of season articles about every low-level, mediocre, run-of-the-mill small college athletics season. If the college football project doesn't exercise some reasonable discretion to limit the creation of stand-alone articles, others who don't have your depth of understanding about college football will step in. IMO we best demonstrate our good editorial judgment by limiting NAIA season articles to exceptional cases, e.g., championship seasons or programs that have since "graduated" to Division I. In this case, there is nothing remotely exceptional about the 1968 Whitewater State football team. Cbl62 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per passing WP:GNG. I note well Cbl's concern about... well... everything and it's very possible that Cbl is correct that other editors will overwhelmingly demand articles like this be removed. For me, 1) I've rarely let other people's opinions change my interpretation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines; 2) "other people probably won't like it" is not a reason to delete; 3) conensus is not a popularity contest, and 4) deletion would not be the answer anyway. It may well be that as a project we should advocate to merge smaller-college season articles in one way or another, but I see those as editing steps and not deletion steps--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2021 (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.