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. Leaning slightly more to keep, but the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules hold for this AfD as well Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Fighting Irish 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]

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 look at the sources. Clearly not indiscriminate. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU Cougars future football schedules, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado Buffaloes football future schedule, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:11, 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]
    • Don't you have some Kansas backyard NAIA teams to write about? Jrcla2 (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ummm that's not a reason to delete this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The more I think about it, the more I think you were attempting to be offensive to me on that one. What was your intention of posting that statement?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly the person who started this whole deletion move has personal issues with what he considers "insignificant" sports teams. I especially resent the Kansas comment. Wrad (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I agree with the idea that these articles should meet the same fate. Location (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that all such 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) 17:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is well sourced by numerous independent, third-party reliable sources, therefore passing WP:GNG. It also has a discriminate focus, and is a useful article for Wikipedia readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the numerous reasons listed on the East Carolina page. PGPirate 17:39, 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 04:00, 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) 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't apply your judgement of East Carolina's Afd here so easily. Notre Dame 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. 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you seriously not vote delete on a 2015 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football season article that used the data provided here? Wrad (talk) 23:47, 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 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football opponents or List of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football opponents. Readers are used to the convention of "XXXX Notre Dame Fighting Irish 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) 17:26, 11 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.