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. This has a lot more keep !votes, and less delete, but the discussion and arguments brought forward are essentially the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules I don't think its unreasonable to say that proponents of deleting the article would have similar arguments here. As such, it would be unreasonable to have a much different outcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Cougars future football schedules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. There's nothing encyclopedic about incomplete future schedules. The user who created this can move this information to a user sub-page, then extract that info when the time comes. GrapedApe (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 9. Snotbot  t • c »  04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all, WP:NOT doesn't say anything about "indiscriminate collections of sports trivia." Please don't make up policy to support your position. Second of all, when exactly does "the time come"? at the end of the previous season? At the start of the new season? Two months before? Three? Who decides? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, BYU's schedule is unusual in that they do not have a preset, conference schedule because they play as an independent, making this information a bit more relevant than it might be for other teams in the NCAA (other than, perhaps, Notre Dame). Wrad (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is well sourced and exceeds WP:GNG standards. Also, the list is not indiscriminate but is specifically about BYU football schedules.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all reasons I, and others, have mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules‎ (the original one of these types of articles to get nominated). Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those reasons don't apply here, since the way BYU schedules its seasons is quite different from East Carolina. See my comments below. Wrad (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am the nominator of the East Carolina article of the same kind. I did not know about the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles when nominating ECU's. Once I became aware of that fact after the arguments began for ECU, I decided it would be much better to wait and see what the final conclusion turns out to be before nominating any of the other ones. If the end result is delete, then the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles could irrefutably be speedy deleted on the basis of precedence. If the result turned out to be no consensus or keep, then I would have left these alone. I think it's counterproductive to have all of these individual AfDs going on at one time when they're all about the exact same issue and I kind of wish these new AfDs were never created. It's just going to create a scattering of rehashed arguments over the span of four different deletion discussions :/ Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response "irrefutably" ? I don't think so. They are not about the exact same topic, each article is different and has its own set of reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I agree with the idea that these articles should meet the same fate. Location (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that these articles should meet the same fate. cmadler (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree that all should meet the same fate. BYU and Notre Dame are very different programs from the other two for reasons that I have already pointed out. They do net have set, conference schedules from year to year. Virtually their entire schedule is a blank slate. Colorado and ECU, on the other hand, are in conferences, and only have a small handful of games that are independently determined each year. Wrad (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to add that scheduling decisions at BYU and Notre Dame, unlike those at East Carolina, are regularly followed by national news organizations, as evidenced by the sources used in this article. If you look closely, you will see citations to ESPN, CBS, NBC, USA Today, and the Associated Press. You will not find these kinds of sources for East Carolina. Wrad (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is well sourced, and—despite what the nominator suggests—it violates no policies. With dozens of citations to reliable sources, the article easily meets WP:GNG. The nominator's rationale is a pure I don't like it argument. —Ute in DC (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is well sourced by numerous independent, third-party reliable sources, and has a discriminate focus. A useful article for Wikipedia readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move info to the appropriate season article and delete this article or redirect it to the most relevent section of BYU Cougars football. Rather than have an article that is in a constant state of flux, one of the options presented on the East Carolina page was that of moving the schedule to the season article it will be in, i.e. 2012 BYU Cougars football team, 2013 BYU Cougars football team, etc. It's going to get moved there eventually anyway. A subheading on the main BYU Cougars football page could highlight some of the higher-profile future opponents and have links to the upcoming season articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the numerous reasons listed on the East Carolina page. PGPirate 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasoning I provided in the East Carolina deletion discussion: "I agree that it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL; while the individual games might not be notable enough for standalone articles, the seasons certainly will be, and the games once scheduled are highly likely to actually be played. The article also does not violate WP:HAMMER; the closest thing a football season has to a "track list" is a list of scheduled games, and that is precisely what the article is listing. Sourcing is for the most part high-quality, being from local newspapers. The media frequently reports on teams scheduling future out of conference opponents as demonstrated by the sourcing in the article; it is not "trivial" as asserted by the nominator. I believe the material in the article meets WP:GNG and therefore should be kept." –Grondemar 04:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has proper citations, is encyclopedic, provides resource of information that is unavailable elsewhere in succinct format --Trödel 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wrad's comments. —Eustress ^talk 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and transform Like my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules, I suggest that this page be converted into the pages for the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc., seasons in userspace. An incomplete list of future games isn't quite so helpful, but these sourced entries should develop the season articles to which they belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't apply your judgement of East Carolina's Afd here so easily. BYU is not the same thing as East Carolina. Information about future schedules is more significant for teams like BYU and Notre Dame because the are Independent schools and are thus not a part of a conference with a set schedule. Rather than having three or four games to schedule on their own accord each year, BYU and Notre Dame have to schedule all twelve or thirteen games in their season of their own accord. The entire season is up in the air until contracts are signed and announcements are made. The significance of these teams' schedules as compared to East Carolina's is apparent if you compare the sources used in this article to those used in the East Carolina article. This article cites national news sources, such as CBS, ESPN, NBC, USA Today, and the Associated Press. East Carolina does not. Wrad (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Notre Dame and BYU are independent, while ECU is not, does not factor into the decision making process here. There is verifiable information regarding future matchups for all three teams that should be included in Wikipedia by creating the relevant season articles. Whether sources are national or regional also doesn't matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you seriously not vote delete on a 2015 BYU Cougars football season article that used the data (1 game) provided here? Wrad (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and transform Per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules, convert into the pages for the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc. for the opponents for individual seasons. If the intent is to also see a snapshot of a series with a specific opponent over many years, the article should be renamed and reformatted to BYU Cougars football opponents or List of BYU Cougars football opponents. Readers are used to the convention of "XXXX BYU Cougars football team" to get to a specific season and will have difficulty finding this article or the schedule they are looking for, and having to create redirects is yet another overhead this current format will create. Avoid the overhead of create proper redirects. Avoid having to guard against duplicate schedule information when the season article is inevitably created. Having separate articles for each future season would be more user-friendly and less unwieldy for readers and editors alike. If we want to provide a view of a series with a specific opponent over many years, this would also be notable for past opponent and not just future opponents. Have an article or list of all opponents that shows the historical series record, relevant notes, and any commitments for future games.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, we have someone copying and pasting their opinions from the East Carolina page to this page without even bothering to read or respond directly to the arguments made on this page. BYU is not East Carolina. Wrad (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you can reconsider. My comments are related to presentation and logistics and nothing specifically related to the individual teams. Thanks you.—Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you make an argument about presentation and logistics when you don't even know what the individual team issues are? Wrad (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I kindly ask that editors assume good faith that all points are being considered, and to please point out specifics that may have inadvertently been missed without generalizations about participants' abilities to comprehend.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, then. Because BYU is an Independent school without a football conference, fewer of the teams that it plays are played against as part of a series, they might play one team here, another team there, and so on, so the change you are proposing would be extremely unwieldy and wouldn't really fall into any logical, comprehensible form. It would be a big mess. Even more so than East Carolina's would be. You say that readers are used to other conventions, but this article has been around for well over a year and is doing just fine. It follows the format set up by the Notre Dame article, which has been around for over three years and has also been doing just fine. A new convention was created by Wikipedians covering Independent schools that they found convenient to themselves and their readership. Yes, other, Wikipedians covering other, non-Conference schools such as Colorado and East Carolina have copied this format, despite the fact that 1) their schools have more conventional, predictable schedules and 2) they have less national press coverage focusing on their non-conference scheduling. The fact that this (good faith) copying occurred, however, should not be used as a weapon in this AfD. What East Carolina and Colorado articles have done with this format is irrelevant here.
          • To wrap up, both BYU and Notre Dame are Independent schools, unlike East Carolina. They put their schedules together in a different way than any other schools in the nation do. On Wikipedia, non-Independent schools present their schedules in these ways: [1] [2]. Should Independent schools be forced to conform? Of course not. Why not? Because they are unique. I think there is something very wrong with putting these schools in the same pot with typical conference schools and forcing them to present their schedules in the same way as everyone else, in the name of "convention." Wrad (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • If an article sorted by opponents is not applicable, then there is no need to create one. Previous arguments in the other AfD were concerned with maintaining a view of all series if this article was deleted and moved to individual season articles instead. The discussion moves to why not move this to the ""XXXX BYU Cougars football team" articles, when the season is notable with verifiable information, especially if each season is independent with few common opponents from year-to-year.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • See my comments below. 21:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
          • To the extent that we're talking about how information should be presented (as opposed to whether information should be included at all), there is some value in considering all the relevant articles. It's certainly not necessary that all such cases follow the same convention, and possibly not desirable (see Wrad's comments on independent versus conference-affiliated scheduling) but not unreasonable for us to discuss it. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would say that distinctions should be made even if we are talking about "whether information should be included at all" for one very simple reason: BYU and Notre Dame's scheduling decisions are covered by national news sources such as ABC, NBC, the Associate Press, CBS, and ESPN. East Carolina and and Colorao's are not. BYU and Notre Dame's future schedules are thus more notable, and it is notability that determines right to exist on Wikipedia. Judge this article on its own terms, not on East Carolina's. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I support the information in this article being in other articles. I'll keep my discussions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules for now while the Afd is still open.—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting this article up into a bunch of season articles would be unwieldy and inconvenient. It is much more simple and handy to have everything in one place. When you have schedules being made into the 2020s for one or two teams (Boise St and Notre Dame, for example), and no other teams are on the schedule for those years. When these future match-ups are being reported in national news sources and are highly notable, but no other match-ups are set up for that year, would you still make a 2020 season article for it? Should a Wikipedia reader have to click on over a dozen different articles to see future seasons?

I will tell you what I would support, and this might be something that could work for both independent and non-Independent schools: What if we had an article like this one: [[3]], that listed information of future seasons and served as a holder until the season became current? I would support that kind of look. It would keep the information convenient and it would also keep things conventional. Wrad (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the East Carolina deletion discussion several weeks ago, I think such articles should be named using the convention SCHOOL MASCOT football future seasons (so this would be "BYU Cougars football future seasons"). I think that would be a step in the right direction. cmadler (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, that was what my comment was in regards to (2012 BYU Cougars football team for example) and a similar one from another editor on the East Carolina discussion. The seasons will be made into articles anyway, so there's no reason why we can't start putting them together now. It's not the info that has me concerned, it's the guaranteed state of such an article as "future schedules" being perpetually out-dated. A specific season article will only have a limited period where it will become out-dated and need updated. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal on the East Carolina Afd. (And have a little faith in Wikipedians, Jon! BYU and Notre Dame's future seasons articles are far from perpetually out-dated. They are very well kept-up!) Wrad (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has plenty of reliable sources to meet GNG. The key difference between BYU and most other college football teams is that they're independent (have no conference). No conference means no set schedule of opponents. Royalbroil 03:45, 12 January 2012 (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.