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. John254 00:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 California Golden Bears football team[edit]

2005 California Golden Bears football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a list of one college sports team's results in a particular season. It should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed., nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk _YO! 08:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little on google or google news to back up the stats displayed or that one year's worth of football player's are notable. Because of this I think it fails general notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google News is not the only way to find sports statistics. Yes, the article is improving and needs more sources but a google search on football statistics from 2005 is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, to see what this article could potentially become, compare this article with the very well sourced article for the 2006 Golden Bears. The fact is D1-A NCAA football is covered in extraordinary detail by reliable sources, and an article on one college football season is hardly indiscriminate. Townlake (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Division I FBS college football teams (the California Golden Bears are one of them) get ample and significant coverage by the media in the United States, thus meeting WP:GNG. There are over 7,000 articles that cover or mention Cal's 2005 football season. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sure, the article needs a lot of work but it should not be deleted. Seancp (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems a number of these season-page deletion noms come from our foreign colleagues who don't realize exactly how big a deal American college football really is --i.e., bigger than anything but the highest level of foreign soccer leagues. So for the reasons stated above, I say keep it. --Bobak (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bobak (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Uh, did you read WP:NOTDIR? It lists the several things it covers and sports team seasons are not among them. Please read policy before you start an AFD over it. Consensus is clearly in favor of these sorts of articles. --Rividian (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, yeah, I did read WP:NOTDIR- particularly the bit that says Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. I made the reasonable judgment that this can be applied to directories of every sports game ever played. If consensus is against me that's one thing, but don't talk down to me by accusing me of not having read the policy. I have. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Comment Speaking for myself and as a member of the college football project, I welcome notability discussions. Wikipedia should be as good as it can be, and discussions like this one help that to happen. Sometimes it becomes frustrating during AFDs because of the work and attention put in to articles, but overall we assume good faith in all nominations.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume he didn't know about the consensus, but it also seems reasonable he didn't really understand WP:NOT. It lists what directories it excludes, it doesn't exclude anything that could theoretically be called a directory. --Rividian (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rule lists what sorts of directories it excludes... and teams by year is not one of them. It's pretty clear about that, so it seemed reasonable that you hadn't read or at least didn't understand the entire rule. It is not a blanket ban on anything that could be called a "directory", we have articles that are part of a "directory" of people elected president of the united states, a "directory" of countries that have joined the UN, etc. --Rividian (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please review CFB:SEASON. Consensus and tremendous amount of precedent support single-season articles for notable college football teams.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - overview articles of sports seasons are acceptable content. matt91486 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2008 (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.