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 Delete. Unamimous consensus to delete. Some other similar articles were mentioned in !votes, but they were not formally added to the nomination per WP:MULTIAFD, and the !votes referred to "per nom", with minimal reference to the others brought up by participants. Feel free to nominate others in another AfD if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Wildcats football series records[edit]

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

At the same time, I am also nominating the following three related pages because of their significantly similar content and notability issues:

Non-notable list subjects that fail WP:GNG and WP:LIST, for lack of significant coverage of the the list subjects as a group in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Moreover, these lists of statistics also violate the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NOTSTATS, to wit:

"Wikipedia articles should not be . . . [e]xcessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."

These articles were previously PROD'ed, but the the PROD templates were removed. A previous AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records, was closed yesterday with a solid consensus in favor of the elimination of a very similar list as a stand-alone article (8 "delete" !votes, 2 "keep" !votes, and 2 merge" !votes). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records, these types of lists have discussed at some length here in Nov. 2015 and here in Sept. 2015. The consensus, which I support, is that we should not have such "series results" lists. The real issues here are whether the lists satisfy WP:LISTN and whether, even if the subject is notable, we ought to exercise editorial judgment under WP:PAGEDECIDE to opt against a stand-alone list/article. In this case, I favor our exercise of editorial judgment to avoid such articles for two reasons. First, I have concerns about our ability to maintain such sprawling lists, as the data at issue is massive (particularly if there are such lists for dozens and dozens of college football programs) and changes with great frequency. Second, the same data sets are published off Wikipedia by organizations (e.g., here) that are better equipped to perform regular updates of the data. As for WP:NOTSTATS, it remains my view that a number of editors have incorrectly interpreted NOTSTATS and that deletionists will seek to exploit that misinterpretation. The purpose of NOTSTATS is to require context for stats and to avoid pure data dumps. If there is a statistical list that is notable and not indiscriminate, NOTSTATS suggests that any such listing should have contextual narrative text and citations. The introductory sentence of WP:NOTSTATS emphasizes precisely this: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." As User:Ejgreen77 noted in one of the prior discussions, if NOTSTATS was a valid basis for deleting statistical listings regardless of notability, it could be used to support deletion of highly notable statistical lists such as: List of college football coaches with 200 wins, List of NCAA football records, List of NCAA Division I FBS running backs with at least 5,000 rushing yards, etc. In sum, the real issue is not whether such lists are precluded under NOTSTATS, but one of reasonable editorial judgment under WP:LISTN and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Cbl62 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the same rationale supports deletion of Iowa Hawkeyes football series records, Michigan State Spartans football series records, Michigan Wolverines football series records, and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records. Cbl62 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records passes the the general notability and WP:LISTN criteria mentioned above. There is significant coverage of their record in independent and reliable sources (I've added relevant notes in the article). I don't know if the same case can be made for the other series records you mention though, as they are now, those pages are not well sources. I must admit I don't like the idea of keeping one and deleting the others, but I didn't support the deletion of these kinds of pages in the first place. That being said I can see notability problems in the case of UMASS and the Charlotte 49ers Shatterdaymorn (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Alabama Crimson Tide football series records. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these pages are all simply direct copies of the source material and are a list of statistics. While those statistics could be a part of an article, they should not make up the complete article (even for a list). A list article should allow for commentary about the list and that commentary should not be original research (meaning "I the author of the Wikipedia page look at the list and observe the following cool things..."). As an alternative, a list article can serve as a navigational aid to articles but that's not what I see here either. It seems to be that these articles are simply copying directly from a web page (or pages) that already exist as a single source.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2016 (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.