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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Utes football under Ron McBride[edit]

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

This article has been split into 13 separate articles. This duplicates those 13 articles and information found in the Ron McBride article. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreate. As it stands now, the article is duplication. However, it is very possible that the article could stand alone with additional details and information--it just isn't there right now. If the article is expanded to be more than a re-hash of what already exists, I'd certainly change my position. If deleted, an appropriate re-direct should be made (which, technically isn't a delete... but you guys know what I mean).--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the original author of the article, and it has served its purpose. The recently-created 13 separate articles will do a better job now. DeFaultRyan 15:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason we shouldn't just blank the article and redirect? Or maybe use a WP:SPEEDY G7 (author requests deletion)? I'd lean towards the redirect for now...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I would not object to a redirect. I nominated the article to get a full opportunity for others to comment. However, what would it redirect to? The main Ron McBride article? —Ute in DC (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking. Right now, it's really a robust disambiguation page. BUt more comments would be good, there's no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2011 (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.