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 no consensus. We have "season" articles for many notable sports teams, and as mentioned, at least some attempt at prose has been made. Some more refs would be good, though. Black Kite 08:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams[edit]

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

I'm bringing this to AfD because I can't find really find anything that says if this is allowed or not. It seems to violate WP:NOT. The only sourcing given is really the site of the team. There are articles templated all the way back to 1927. Is Wikipedia the place to list the win-loss , defense, offense and other stats of EVERY college team for EVERY state in the country?

This is meant as a good-faith AfD and inquiry. Please speedy keep it if my interpretation of WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N is off. Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Depends if it's notable. 2007 USC Trojans football team is a Featured Article, so some seasons of some teams are definitely allowed. I would do an all dates google news search to see if sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a project that is described in [1] and that's not found by going through the search engine. I'm not in favor of Wikipedia being a parallel to a team's official site, nor a repository for "the statistics that anyone can edit" for any sports team, even in the National Football League. I'm all in favor of an article about the Southern Oregon University football team, but not to the level of detail seen here, so I'd be in favor of deleting this article. However, one person's minutiae is another person's project. Mandsford (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As was stated above, no problem with having a history of this football program. However, this seems to be just a copy of plain statistics with no article content. If a page (or series of pages) were created perhaps cataloging the eras of the program, that would be nice. However, a general overview of the games played, scores, and perhaps season standouts is all that is needed as far as stats & numbers go for this type of thing.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discussed at WP:CFBSEASONS. Personally, I'd like to see a better "division" of the dates, say 2000+, or 2006, 2007, 2008 individual articles if there is enough, or "under coach X" ... I think the content could be editied to make a better article, and there is an over-use of the team logo (as if multiple individual season articles were created and then combined).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a LOT of seasons, but I hate nominating a huge batch of articles at once. Should only the "notable" seasons be allowed? What defines the notable one? If the general consensus is that it should be kept and reorganized somehow, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response y'see, that's the thing: "notable" does not necessarily mean "good" especially when it comes to football seasons. Say there's 10 games in a season, then there's 10 opponents. That gives a total of 11 teams involved in any given season (assuming each team is played only once). So we have Teams A (home team), then B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K. each week, Team A plays one of the teams from the opponent set. Now at the end of each game, the sports information departments from each school A and opposing school goes to work with releases. Then those releases and statistics are compiled by sportswriters across the country. let's say that they are small schools in the NAIA (like the teams in question here). There would be a minimum of 2 community newspaper articles about that game: Team A News and Team B News (excluding school papers). But that's not what usually happens--there's usually a few articles before and after each game... and then there's usually a regional paper or two that picks up the story (in Kansas, it is not uncommon for the Topeka Capital Journal, Wichita Eagle Beacon, Salina Journal, and Kansas City Star to run articles on each and every Kansas NAIA football game. So the amount of press coverage created by even a small college football game (especially in recent times) is really quite large. So for the season, you've got say 6 articles per game, you're looking at 60 articles from local papers and maybe another 40 articles from regional papers! Not to mention the major newspapers that do pick up small college articles from time to time (NYTimes and Chicago Tribune have been known to have more than a few write-ups, as well as The Sporting News, ESPN, etc). Throw in the news services that specialize in covering nationally NAIA sports, media guides, historical information, and a few occasional "feature" articles and you've got a notable event under WP:SNOW. For the record, WP:CFB does not necessarily encourage season articles (or game articles) for NAIA programs, but we have put together some steps on how to do so. Does that help at all?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:IINFO is met, at least for the 2008 season, because it's not just a list of the data but also has been incorporated into text that is easy to read. 2006 and 2007 are just listed data, but that can be editied like 2008 and it becomes a content issue: " In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't find myself agreeing with you there. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Welcome to Wikipedia! :)--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not prepared to discount any college football season. In fact I am happy to see these were all merged together. If anything, I would suggesting merging more together instead of creating new pages --however it might work best being divided by decade or coach as has been done in other college season articles. --Bobak (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald. I agree the organization of this needs a lot of help. But meets NOTINFO requirements in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A college football season article in need of cleanup. I disagree with the statement from Stifle that it fails WP:IINFO, as a quick look at the 2008 season shows that the article is NOT merely a collection of statistics. SashaNein (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep — Needs a lot of work, but it's a notable subject and at least a minor effort has been made at prose. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 12 October 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.