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 per WP:SNOW, as the issues brought up in the discussion have been addressed, and there is nobody that wanted to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 21:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Penn Quakers football team[edit]

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

It's too soon to make this page without any special information right now. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the de facto "one-year-rule" compromise used by the Wikipedia sports projects. In the future, however, it might be a good idea to wait until the team's schedule is officially released before creating any more of these type of articles. But, bottom line, this is a current season that is definitely going to happen, and deletion here would be basically pointless. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the games have not started yet, but there is information to be entered: coaches, recruiting, schedule, location, etc. It is common to begin team articles now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the nominator, Paul, if you go to the Penn athletics website (1), it's still showing last year's schedule, obviously this year's hasn't been released yet. As I suggested above, for this type of article, it's probably a good idea to wait until we at least have some kind of a schedule before beginning the article. With that said, the schedule here probably will be released within the next couple of weeks, so deletion here would serve no real purpose. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's a good faith nomination, and it probably is a good idea to wait. I wouldn't create the article just yet. But that does not mean that someone else couldn't or shouldn't.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, just like that, hey, presto (1)! Let's get it in the article, get this thing closed, and move on to other, more productive things. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2015 (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.