- 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. A Traintalk 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable sports team, appropriately covered at Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Scripps College, and Claremont Colleges per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE James (talk/contribs) 02:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Notable that two colleges combine into one for athletics, but as noted above I think the info can be merged into the respective colleges' pages. Schools in the same division do not have separate pages for their athletic teams and it doesn't seem appropriate to start making them now. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spatms (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 11:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, based on the AFD nomination itself, which points out that four separate college articles will otherwise need to cover the fact that the four colleges share a joint sports program. The article itself is not bloated, it doesn't go into a lot, but it provides a place for coverage of the joint sports teams and avoids need for repetition elsewhere. If the same material is repeated at four separate articles, then it will tend to gain inconsistencies and be hard to maintain. There is no benefit and some definite costs to the change suggested in this AFD. --doncram 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious if you actually read any of the linked articles. Three colleges share a sports program. The fourth link is to the collegiate consortium, which would naturally contain the majority of the information on the athletic program. The three individual college pages would only need a short summary with a link to the consortium page, which could go into the appropriate detail. Regardless, your comment does not address the notability issue. James (talk/contribs) 15:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2017 (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.