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. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU Cougars future football schedules. Apologies for the double redirect Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Buffaloes football future schedule (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 »  04:58, 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]

• Keep article is sourced with independent reliable sources, surpasses WP:GNG and does not violate any policy. Clearly not indiscriminate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:12, 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]
• 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]
  • Response An article really needs to fit CSD criteria for it to be speedy deleted. However, consistency is good and I expect these four articles to all have the same fate. --Carbon Rodney 06:20, 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) 06:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree that all such articles should meet the same fate. cmadler (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep - This article is sourced mainly by primary sources. The Daily Camera link doesn't appear to link to the article it is intended to, for whatever reasons. However, there are definitely sources available. This article needs more references from reliable secondary sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this will definately be a notable topic, but not under this title and not today. There just aren't sufficient reliable sources available. Until the schedule is annouced, this article will be completely based on conjecture and rumor and is merely WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing. RadioFan (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some schools do not announce schedules more than 1 or 2 years ahead. However, some schools and conferences announce schedules much further ahead (some rivalries announce partnerships for decades!). These are all from reliable, cite-able articles, and as such, there is no WP:CRYSTAL involved, especially since that specifically talks about unverifiable future-ness. MECU≈talk 02:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the numerous reasons listed on the East Carolina page. PGPirate 17:42, 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... 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 04:01, 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]
• Keep I am the creator. It meets all criteria and is sourced. It is not trivia, and since all the information will be included in another article in the future, there is no reason to delete it now. Specifically, there could be announced changes to the schedule that would be more difficult to capture later on and articles would there be LESS COMPLETE AND THOROUGH than possible. All because someone wanted to delete delete delete. MECU≈talk 02:54, 11 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 Colorado Buffaloes football opponents or List of Colorado Buffaloes football opponents. Readers are used to the convention of "XXXX Colorado Buffaloes 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) 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all of these articles References exist for the information. Look at the template. Eventually this will be an article for 2012. No reason not to have it now listing when games are scheduled. These games are all notable events, having ample coverage and a massive number of people watching them. Dream Focus 17:31, 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.