- 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- 1905 Wabash Little Giants football team ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. No significant coverage online. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable season, also nominate 1921 Wabash Little Giants football team Seasider91 ( talk) 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep not surprised to find nothing online about a 1905 event. Generally we keep season articles about teams that play "at the highest level" of the sport. Since this pre-dates the National Football League by 15 years and even the NCAA by 5 years, college football teams during this time are widely considered notable for their play. There is an essay that outlines the argumentation in detail at WP:CFBSEASON.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment "Single seasons (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team) can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage (see WP:ROUTINE). In general, seasons that culminate in a bowl game will likely be notable. However, not all seasons by teams that participate in college football are inherently notable."
- Merge the articles on individual seasons into
Wabash Little Giants football. Notability isn't gained by the passage of time any more than it diminishes over time. The essay cited by
Paul McDonald doesn't support an article for each season. It also is outdated. For example,
Arkansas Razorbacks football, 1900-1909 is now a redirect to
Arkansas Razorbacks football. I'd support the same for this article, merge and redirect.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
19:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would have no objection to merging the articles if they are actually merged... and I admit there isn't much there to merge at the moment. But there is a far cry between "saying they should be merged" and then "actually merging them" -- I would rather see the articles be developed. Remember, there is no deadline. So the question becomes: if they are to be merged, who will do it and then when they are developed will they be split out again? The Razorbacks football redirect is another set of articles and though it is an example of how enthusiastic editors for that particular team have chosen to develop the platform, it certainly isn't a mandate of method by any stretch. We can look at
1905 Kansas State Aggies football team or
1890 Yale Bulldogs football team or the
1892 Michigan Wolverines football team as counter-examples.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
19:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, questions could be posed regarding a "keep" !vote, too: if they are kept, who will develop them? Anyone can merge them, and anyone can split them out again. Looking at other articles about early individual college seasons, I doubt there will ever be a need to split them out again. Anyone searching for information on an individual season or to add details about a season will be directed to the main page on the team. Better to combine efforts to create one good article rather than numerous perma-stubs. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 21:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just for the record, those Arkansas seasons have their own aritcles, ex. 1900 Arkansas Cardinals football team. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 21:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would have no objection to merging the articles if they are actually merged... and I admit there isn't much there to merge at the moment. But there is a far cry between "saying they should be merged" and then "actually merging them" -- I would rather see the articles be developed. Remember, there is no deadline. So the question becomes: if they are to be merged, who will do it and then when they are developed will they be split out again? The Razorbacks football redirect is another set of articles and though it is an example of how enthusiastic editors for that particular team have chosen to develop the platform, it certainly isn't a mandate of method by any stretch. We can look at
1905 Kansas State Aggies football team or
1890 Yale Bulldogs football team or the
1892 Michigan Wolverines football team as counter-examples.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
19:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Wabash Little Giants football because the article contains virtually no information.However, it appears that Wabash was playing at the top level of college football at the time, so I would not want to prohibit the creation of a proper article if editors want to find the sources to write one. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)- I'm changing to neutral due to the improvements to the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment remember, the question here is not "is the article written in a way that is incomplete" but "is the subject notable" which is regardless of the current state. While it's possible that an article could be so poorly assembled that it should be deleted and start over, I don't see that as the case here. The question is not "Is this a good article" but instead "is the subject notable" and those are two very different questions. If the subject is notable, the article should stay and is developed over time. Do not
confuse stub status with a lack of notability.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
01:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Per
WP:NSEASONS, not notable. Not even close.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
02:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- WP:NSEASONS is inclusionary, not exclusionary. Surpassing WP:GNG is more than enough.-- Paul McDonald ( talk)
- Per
WP:NSEASONS, not notable. Not even close.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
02:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. There are a lot more pages like this (e.g. 1880 Stevens Ducks football team) which should probably also be deleted in the future. There's no inherent notability for college football teams on a per-season level. For current-day coverage, there's enough WP:MILL coverage to justify per-year subpages, but there clearly is not here. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)- Comment did some research this morning and it turns out the 1905 Little Giants gave Notre Dame their only home-field loss in 125 games between 1899 and 1928. An accomplishment like that certainly would have been covered in the news extensively, way beyond any "routine" box scores. It stands to reason that significant off-line references exist.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Here are some newspapers.com sources about the 1905 Wabash football team,
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9] and two pictures of the players
[10],
[11].
WikiOriginal-9 (
talk)
19:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Good find. To me, that clearly surpasses
WP:GNG, especially with what we have already found.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Per guideline
WP:ROUTINE and policy
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, summary reports of local sports results do not establish notability.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- The extensive online coverage located and sourced is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE. Feature articles, details and more are clearly beyond the scope of "sports scores" outlined in WP:ROUTINE.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 23:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Per guideline
WP:ROUTINE and policy
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, summary reports of local sports results do not establish notability.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Good find. To me, that clearly surpasses
WP:GNG, especially with what we have already found.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WikiOriginal-9's sources and research. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 10:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. In fairness to the nominator and early voters, the article was threadbare at the time of the nomination (see here), but has since been substantially bolstered with 17 sources. The article now passes WP:GNG with abundant significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Wabash in the early 1900s under coach Francis M. Cayou played at the highest level of competition for American football. The team's 1905 victory over Notre Dame was a major event of the 1905 season. Wabash also held close Amos Alonzo Stagg's 1905 national champion Chicago team in a game played on Stagg's home field. A search in Newspapers.com turns up nearly 3,000 articles referencing Wabash football in the fall of 1905. The coverage includes significant coverage in the region's leading metropolitan newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune The Cincinnati Enquirer, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and The Indianapolis Star. Cbl62 ( talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Metropolitan90: @
Power~enwiki: @
Seasider91: Pinging each of you to ask if you will take a fresh look now that the article has been expanded with substantial additional sourcing.
Cbl62 (
talk)
23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: The 1905 Wabash - Notre Dame game was the subject of an article in the College Football Historical Society Newsletter that can be found here. Cbl62 ( talk) 23:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've struck my vote after the article improvements, and don't plan to comment further here. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Metropolitan90: @
Power~enwiki: @
Seasider91: Pinging each of you to ask if you will take a fresh look now that the article has been expanded with substantial additional sourcing.
Cbl62 (
talk)
23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep passes GNG. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll change my vote to *Keep now that notability has been established Seasider91 ( talk) 10:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- 1905 Wabash Little Giants football team ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. No significant coverage online. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable season, also nominate 1921 Wabash Little Giants football team Seasider91 ( talk) 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep not surprised to find nothing online about a 1905 event. Generally we keep season articles about teams that play "at the highest level" of the sport. Since this pre-dates the National Football League by 15 years and even the NCAA by 5 years, college football teams during this time are widely considered notable for their play. There is an essay that outlines the argumentation in detail at WP:CFBSEASON.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment "Single seasons (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team) can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage (see WP:ROUTINE). In general, seasons that culminate in a bowl game will likely be notable. However, not all seasons by teams that participate in college football are inherently notable."
- Merge the articles on individual seasons into
Wabash Little Giants football. Notability isn't gained by the passage of time any more than it diminishes over time. The essay cited by
Paul McDonald doesn't support an article for each season. It also is outdated. For example,
Arkansas Razorbacks football, 1900-1909 is now a redirect to
Arkansas Razorbacks football. I'd support the same for this article, merge and redirect.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
19:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would have no objection to merging the articles if they are actually merged... and I admit there isn't much there to merge at the moment. But there is a far cry between "saying they should be merged" and then "actually merging them" -- I would rather see the articles be developed. Remember, there is no deadline. So the question becomes: if they are to be merged, who will do it and then when they are developed will they be split out again? The Razorbacks football redirect is another set of articles and though it is an example of how enthusiastic editors for that particular team have chosen to develop the platform, it certainly isn't a mandate of method by any stretch. We can look at
1905 Kansas State Aggies football team or
1890 Yale Bulldogs football team or the
1892 Michigan Wolverines football team as counter-examples.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
19:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, questions could be posed regarding a "keep" !vote, too: if they are kept, who will develop them? Anyone can merge them, and anyone can split them out again. Looking at other articles about early individual college seasons, I doubt there will ever be a need to split them out again. Anyone searching for information on an individual season or to add details about a season will be directed to the main page on the team. Better to combine efforts to create one good article rather than numerous perma-stubs. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 21:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just for the record, those Arkansas seasons have their own aritcles, ex. 1900 Arkansas Cardinals football team. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 21:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would have no objection to merging the articles if they are actually merged... and I admit there isn't much there to merge at the moment. But there is a far cry between "saying they should be merged" and then "actually merging them" -- I would rather see the articles be developed. Remember, there is no deadline. So the question becomes: if they are to be merged, who will do it and then when they are developed will they be split out again? The Razorbacks football redirect is another set of articles and though it is an example of how enthusiastic editors for that particular team have chosen to develop the platform, it certainly isn't a mandate of method by any stretch. We can look at
1905 Kansas State Aggies football team or
1890 Yale Bulldogs football team or the
1892 Michigan Wolverines football team as counter-examples.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
19:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Wabash Little Giants football because the article contains virtually no information.However, it appears that Wabash was playing at the top level of college football at the time, so I would not want to prohibit the creation of a proper article if editors want to find the sources to write one. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)- I'm changing to neutral due to the improvements to the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment remember, the question here is not "is the article written in a way that is incomplete" but "is the subject notable" which is regardless of the current state. While it's possible that an article could be so poorly assembled that it should be deleted and start over, I don't see that as the case here. The question is not "Is this a good article" but instead "is the subject notable" and those are two very different questions. If the subject is notable, the article should stay and is developed over time. Do not
confuse stub status with a lack of notability.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
01:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Per
WP:NSEASONS, not notable. Not even close.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
02:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- WP:NSEASONS is inclusionary, not exclusionary. Surpassing WP:GNG is more than enough.-- Paul McDonald ( talk)
- Per
WP:NSEASONS, not notable. Not even close.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
02:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. There are a lot more pages like this (e.g. 1880 Stevens Ducks football team) which should probably also be deleted in the future. There's no inherent notability for college football teams on a per-season level. For current-day coverage, there's enough WP:MILL coverage to justify per-year subpages, but there clearly is not here. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)- Comment did some research this morning and it turns out the 1905 Little Giants gave Notre Dame their only home-field loss in 125 games between 1899 and 1928. An accomplishment like that certainly would have been covered in the news extensively, way beyond any "routine" box scores. It stands to reason that significant off-line references exist.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Here are some newspapers.com sources about the 1905 Wabash football team,
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9] and two pictures of the players
[10],
[11].
WikiOriginal-9 (
talk)
19:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Good find. To me, that clearly surpasses
WP:GNG, especially with what we have already found.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Per guideline
WP:ROUTINE and policy
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, summary reports of local sports results do not establish notability.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- The extensive online coverage located and sourced is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE. Feature articles, details and more are clearly beyond the scope of "sports scores" outlined in WP:ROUTINE.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 23:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Per guideline
WP:ROUTINE and policy
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, summary reports of local sports results do not establish notability.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Good find. To me, that clearly surpasses
WP:GNG, especially with what we have already found.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WikiOriginal-9's sources and research. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 10:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. In fairness to the nominator and early voters, the article was threadbare at the time of the nomination (see here), but has since been substantially bolstered with 17 sources. The article now passes WP:GNG with abundant significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Wabash in the early 1900s under coach Francis M. Cayou played at the highest level of competition for American football. The team's 1905 victory over Notre Dame was a major event of the 1905 season. Wabash also held close Amos Alonzo Stagg's 1905 national champion Chicago team in a game played on Stagg's home field. A search in Newspapers.com turns up nearly 3,000 articles referencing Wabash football in the fall of 1905. The coverage includes significant coverage in the region's leading metropolitan newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune The Cincinnati Enquirer, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and The Indianapolis Star. Cbl62 ( talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Metropolitan90: @
Power~enwiki: @
Seasider91: Pinging each of you to ask if you will take a fresh look now that the article has been expanded with substantial additional sourcing.
Cbl62 (
talk)
23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: The 1905 Wabash - Notre Dame game was the subject of an article in the College Football Historical Society Newsletter that can be found here. Cbl62 ( talk) 23:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've struck my vote after the article improvements, and don't plan to comment further here. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Metropolitan90: @
Power~enwiki: @
Seasider91: Pinging each of you to ask if you will take a fresh look now that the article has been expanded with substantial additional sourcing.
Cbl62 (
talk)
23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep passes GNG. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll change my vote to *Keep now that notability has been established Seasider91 ( talk) 10:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.