Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Iowa Hawkeyes football series records

Iowa Hawkeyes football series records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages because [they are of the same sort and have the same issues]:
Alabama Crimson Tide football series records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michigan Wolverines football series records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michigan State Spartans football series records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As Dirtawyer1 put it during the similarly executed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wildcats football series records "Non-notable list subjects that fail WP:GNG and WP:LIST, for lack of significant coverage of the the list subjects as a group in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Moreover, these lists of statistics also violate the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NOTSTATS, to wit:

"Wikipedia articles should not be . . . [e]xcessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely." Another Previous AfD discussion along these lines also took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records which was also closed as delete. UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 06:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nominator's argument and precedent of similar recent AfDs. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is a consensus that we should not have these "series results" lists. I favor our exercise of editorial judgment to avoid such articles because (i) of concerns about maintenance as the data is massive and changes with great frequency, and (ii) the same data is published off Wikipedia by organizations better equipped to perform regular data updates. I do not, however, agree that WP:NOTSTATS is a proper rationale for deleting. The purpose of NOTSTATS is to require context for stats and to avoid pure data dumps. The introductory sentence of NOTSTATS emphasizes precisely this: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." That issue could be fixed by adding contextual narrative text. Using NOTSTATS as a rationale is short-sighted and unnecessarily renders other highly notable statistical lists subject to challenge. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note: The same concerns apply with equal force to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • This is not true. Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records passes notability requirements in accordance with WP:LIST since it is discussed in books about the team (see the references). Editorial judgment under WP:PAGEDECIDE does not trump general notability. Information contained in that page (specifically the context information and its accompanying references not) are not available on the statistics webpages you are referring to. Those pages tend to lack any such context. Finally, concern about maintaining the information for that page is also idle since it is no more problematic than updating a season record for that team. It is true that maintaining such pages for every college football team would be massive undertaking, but there is no need to since series records are not notable for all teams (e.g., UMASS and the Charlotte Bobcats both had series pages and were of dubious notability). Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 11:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
There are four elements to the Iowa page: (1) all-time record (duplicated from the main Iowa Hawkeyes football article); (2) all-time record against Big Ten opponents (duplicated from the main Iowa Hawkeyes football article); (3) record by opponent (the point under discussion, as to which there is a consensus to delete); and (4) record against conferences (a new twist that, if worthwhile [I have no strong view], could be added to the main Iowa Hawkeyes football article). Cbl62 ( talk) 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete these pages are examples of excessive listing of statistics. I suppose it is a curiosity to know that the Alabama Crimson Tide football program is a solid 1-0 against the 2nd Ambulance Company of Ohio... but these pages appear to be just a copy of other pages that already exist on the internet.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination here, and the conclusions at the other example AFDs. Excessive stats listing, not fitting for an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete I have disagreed with this sort of editorial judgment in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records ) and I disagree with it here. The page needs more context and more citation to clearly demonstrate notability in accordance with WP:LIST, but lack of citation does not mean it fails notability. Furthermore, the concern about maintaining the information is idle since the page is clearly well-maintained. While it would be a massive task to maintain such information for all college football teams maintaining it for just teams that are notable is not. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 11:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Well then, can you provide more context, content, and sourcing that isn't redundant to the content at the team's parent article? These articles keep getting deleted partially because people cannot sufficiently do so. Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Adding context to a page in the middle of a deletion debate has not really accomplished much in the past (Note: I spent several hours trying adding context and references to the Texas page to no avail). Lack of context/sourcing, however, does not imply that such context/sourcing cannot be provided (see WP:GNG and WP:NPOSSIBLE ). I can't really speak to the Iowa page in particular (maybe ‎RhinoSpear79 can?), but there exists books on the history of Alabama, Michigan, and Notre Dame football that discuss all time records. When teams rank high on the all time records list, college football writers and historians talk about it. I agree that such lists should not exist for all teams since series records for many teams are not notable. It would be an over-generalization, however, to suppose that all such lists are not notable. In a similar way, most punters not notable, that doesn't mean all pages on punters should be deleted. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 08:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • At the end of the day, these lists fails on three counts:
1. The specific subject of these lists, e.g., the series win-loss records of the Iowa Hawkeyes football team, is not notable because it has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources as required by WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. The well-established notability of the parent football teams, e.g., Iowa Hawkeyes football, is irrelevant. And there has been ZERO evidence provided of significant coverage of these specific list topics. If there is no significant coverage of the specific topic in independent sources, then it's game over for this topic as a stand-alone article.
2. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, it is not a directory, and it is not a random list of statistics that editors find interesting. Wikipedia is supposed to be a general interest encyclopedia that provides summary coverage of notable subjects, including notable sports subjects. Some folks don't get this, and it is especially problematic for our various sports WikiProjects, many of which have active and even articulate members who don't grasp the difference between an encyclopedia that provides summary coverage of the most important elements of a notable sports topic, and a sports fansite on which fans can post any and all trivial information about a given sports subject. Notwithstanding various attempts to interpret WP:NOTSTATS out of meaningful existence, these are exactly the type of 99.9% trivial stats lists that are supposed to be excluded from Wikipedia. The idea that we may include whatever stats lists we want as stand-alone articles, regardless of notability, and regardless of their length or trivial nature, is wrong-headed and self-serving. Down that path lies the inclusion of the precinct election results for all 30,000 precincts in the United States for every national election if only we provide enough "context"; or lists of batting averages for every Major League Baseball player in history -- if only we provide enough "context". At some point the absurdity of it becomes apparent to most AfD participants even if they cannot articulate their reasoning.
3. As pointed out above, the most relevant elements of these lists -- win-loss records vs. rivals and conference opponents -- are usually already covered in the parent team articles. And that's as it should be in a general interest encyclopedia. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
We agree on at least one count -- that "series record" lists probably do not satisfy WP:NLIST and therefore ought to be deleted. (Based on Shatterdaymorn's concerns, I'll reserve judgment on the Notre Dame list.) That said, your other comments raise broader concerns. A few points:
1. Randomness. You characterize the list at issue as a "random list of statistics". I disagree that "randomness" is the problem. The word "random" means: (a) "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern" or (b) "of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen." See here. The list presently under review is entirely coherent, has a definite focus and pattern, and is the very antithesis of a "random list of statistics." Accordingly, "randomness" is not a separate basis (or, indeed, any basis) for deletion here.
2. General interest. You assert that Wikipedia is "a general interest encyclopedia". As explicitly noted in WP:FIVEPILLARS (Wikipedia's core principles), Wikipedia is not solely a "general interest encyclopedia". To the contrary, it "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." We do not limit our coverage of physics or medicine to items of "general" as opposed to "specialized" interest; nor should we apply such limits to our coverage of sports. The limits of WP:GNG and sound editorial judgment are sufficient to ensure that things don't go too far afield. We do not need a new, arbitrary, and hopelessly subjective "general interest" limitation on what topics can or can't be included in Wikipedia.
3. Summary coverage vs. comprehensive coverage. You say that Wikipedia is limited to "summary coverage". If you are simply echoing the principle set forth in WP:NOTEVERYTHING, that's fine. We don't need truly trivial information, even in an article about an important subject. However, as set forth at WP:FACR, our best articles endeavor to provide "comprehensive" coverage that "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." The phrase "comprehensive summary coverage" is the goal set forth in WP:ARTDEV. Of course, there is tension between "summary" coverage and "comprehensive" coverage on topics of note. We want "major details," but not "trivial details." This is a matter of editorial judgment in which some matters are clear but many others fall into a gray area where reasonable minds can and do differ. Everything is not black and white.
4. NOTSTATS. I assume you are referring to me as the one "attempt[ing] to interpret WP:NOTSTATS out of meaningful existence." That is simply not so. It is the deletionists who sometimes try to morph NOTSTATS into something that it is not, i.e., a prohibition on statistical listings. On its face, the legitimate and meaningful function of NOTSTATS is clear: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." In no way, shape or form is this an assertion that lists of data/statistics don't belong on Wikipedia. Indeed, NOTSTATS expressly describes the remedies for excessive listings of statistics, including adding "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context" and "using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Moreover, and as noted above, our core policy at WP:FIVEPILLARS expressly states that Wikipedia properly includes "many features of ... specialized almanacs". Bear in mind, however, neither I nor anyone is arguing that non-notable statistical lists have any place on Wikipedia. Therein lies the key distinction. IMO, the proper analysis is under WP:GNG and WP:NLIST with the added option in rare instances of exercising editorial judgment under WP:PAGEDECIDE against a stand-alone list/article. Bottom line: If statistics are not sufficiently notable, they ought not be the subject of a stand-alone list. If statistics are sufficiently notable, NOTSTATS is not a bar, it simply requires appropriate contextualization. If the deletionist approach to NOTSTATS were to be embraced, important and notable statistical lists would be equally in jeopardy, e.g., List of NCAA football records, List of NHL statistical leaders, List of National Football League rushing yards leaders, List of Major League Baseball career runs batted in leaders, List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders, Lists of tennis records and statistics, etc.
5. Tone. As you sometimes do, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Those who disagree with you "can't grasp" what an encyclopedia is. They just "don't get it." They are "wrongheaded" and "self-serving". Their statements are an "absurdity". I don't know if you're a transactional lawyer (one who spends most of his/her time in the office drafting documents) or a litigator who regularly argues cases in court. If you are the latter, you would presumably know that such attacks do little to advance your case; they are more likely to alienate judges and jurors who tend to assume that those resorting to such arguments are either bullies or have no substantive case and must resort to other tactics. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
These are good well-reasoned points and agree with your assessment. I think ultimately you are correct and the case rests on WP:NLIST and notability. Such an argument, however, does not give general grounds for deleting all such series history pages which is how some people seem to be using it. It only gives grounds to delete such pages on a case by case basis. If notability can be established, then the page should be kept. I think notability can be established for some of them (i.e., Alabama, Michigan, and Notre Dame), but that is because I have seen the books discussing it. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 08:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Cbl62, as you have sometimes done, you have chosen to personalize an argument. You're obviously a litigator, but you have a rather unfortunate habit of making on-wiki arguments about you when they are not. If you perceive yourself as the target of the very accurate and fair criticism above, sorry, but that's on you. The only criticism that I actually intended for you is your misinterpretation of WP:NOTSTATS, which has needed to be corrected since you first announced it last summer. In several AfD discussions since then, you have emphasized the first introductory sentence of WP:NOTSTATS to the virtual exclusion of the rest of the introduction and the four subsections applicable to fictional works, song lyrics, statistics, and software updates. Yes, statistical lists require context, but lists of stats may still be excluded when they are "excessive" even if they have explanatory text, and this is made perfectly clear by the examples provided by NOTSTATS. For an extreme example, yes, U.S. presidential election results are notable, but, no, there is no amount of "context" you could provide that would justify listing the presidential election results for all 30,000 polling precincts on Wikipedia, because that list of statistics would be excessive by any reasonable measure. Bottom line: the two clauses are intended to operate independently of each other: (1) excessive stats lists may be excluded, and (2) those lists of stats which are not "excessive" still must be placed in context with sufficient explanatory text. Likewise, the third subsection applicable to excessive stats lists operates in a very similar fashion to the other three subsections of WP:NOTSTATS: (1) exclusion of detailed recitations of every minor plot point of fictional works; (2) exclusion of complete song lyrics; and (3) exclusion of complete software updates. Just as there is no amount of "context" that may justify the inclusion of "excessive" stats lists, there is also no amount of context that justifies the inclusion of complete recitations of every detail of your favorite novel, complete song lyrics, or complete lists of software updates. It's not an accident these four subtopics are grouped together under the section heading "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Regarding my statement that Wikipedia is a "general interest encyclopedia," quoting WP:FIVEPILLARS does nothing to refute the fundamental validity of that statement. Just because Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" does not make it a "sports almanac" wherein it is appropriate to include excessively long lists of sports statistics, as if it were The Big Book of College Football or the like. Including features of an almanac does not mean that Wikipedia is an almanac, nor does including some features of an almanac justify the inclusion of every long list of sports stats that any editor may imagine, compile, or find elsewhere and copy to Wikipedia. WP:NOTSTATS is clearly intended as a limitation on exactly that sort of excessive stats lists. If that leaves certain sacred cows among existing sports stats lists vulnerable, then perhaps we should (a) critically review the notability of such list topics per GNG and LISTN, and (b) contemplate the re-structuring of those lists so that they are both notable and not "excessive". For present purposes, it is enough to say that the complete listing of the Iowa Hawkeyes' 182 series win-loss records (not 124 as indicated) and mostly trivial related data points is clearly excessive and unnecessary. Perhaps we need to amend WP:What Wikipedia is not to include the statement that "Wikipedia is not the Iowa Hawkeyes Football Media Guide.
As for the other mostly tangential points you raised, I stand by every word I wrote above, and nothing I wrote is inconsistent with the guidelines cited by you. I should thank you, however, for sharing your stereotypes of litigators and transactional attorneys; I somehow missed those differences during my four years of law school and nearly 20 years of practice. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I did not personalize anything. I wasn't sure who the ad hominem attacks were directed at. My point is a more general one, i.e., that it is best to keep discussion to the topic rather than the person. The point was meant as constructive advice, and you are, of course, free to take or leave it. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
BTW, I do believe that it is still a fundamental rule of statutory construction to interpret a rule, regulation, ordinance, statute or law as a whole, and not piecemeal, so as to give effect to each element to the fullest extent possible. Your interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS, which you evidently believe to be the only reasonable interpretation, makes the words "excessive" and "excess" meaningless, because no list of stats, regardless of its length, could ever be excessive if it were only a matter of providing written explanation sufficient to provide context. Perhaps you may want to keep that in mind while you're working to convince the judges and jurors of the correctness of your new and novel interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS. Which, of course, is constructive advice you are free to take or leave. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Just back from happy hour and feeling good (kick ass margaritas and guac at Carmelita's in Laguna Beach!) You are a smart guy, Dirtaywyer. My advice to you is sincere, really and truly. If you could just cut out the ad hominem attacks, the heavy-handed snarkiness, the f--- bombs, and the smarter-than-everyone-else attitude, you could be a great Wikipedian. There are lots of smart people here. Everyday, smart guys need to tell themselves, "I am pretty g-- d--- smart, but there are lots of other smart and dedicated people here, and some who are ... maybe, possibly ... actually smarter than me. I need to listen more and not always assume that I know what is best." ,,. Cue to either sneer or take to heart. Up to you. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • For what is is worth re: WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. The following is a sample of books that discuss series results for college football teams: Alabama ("University of Alabama Crimson Tide Football: History, Traditions and Notable" by Reese, "Always Alabama: A History of Crimson Tide Football" by Wade, "The Crimson Tide: The Official Illustrated History of Alabama Football" by Groom and Castille)), Michigan ("Michigan Football: The History of the Nation's Winningest Program" by Rosenberg, Dailey, et al., "100 Things Michigan Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die" by Chengelis), and Notre Dame ("The Notre Dame Football Encyclopedia: The Ultimate Guide to America's Favorite College Team" by Marder, Spellman, and Donovan, "The Notre Dame Football Encyclopedia: 4th Edition." by Steele, "The Notre Dame Fighting Irish" by Stewart, "Echoes of Notre Dame Football" by Garner). These works mainstream works that satisfy the Significant coverage, Reliability, Sources, and Independent of the subject requirements. These works only represents a selection of the literature. There is more out there. I presume such books probably exist for Iowa though I don't own them. So, given notability, there is a presumption in favor of keeping them. This presumption can be undermined by concerns associated with whether "it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." These lists don't represent "indiscriminate collections of information" since they are discriminate (see Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information). Are they excessive statistics? The concern WP:NOTSTATSBOOK focuses on "readability and neatness". These lists do not seem unreadable or non-neat despite being large. They are fairly well organized and easy to understand. The fact that they are sortable helps. With sufficient context, these lists do not represent a sprawl of confusing data. The "down that path lies" argument seems to a slippery slope argument suggesting that if we let these articles in there will be some sort of chaotic mess and we must let all sorts of sprawling lists like "batting averages for every Major League Baseball player in history" or "precinct election results for all 30,000 precincts". This is not a good argument. Such problematic list would not pass general notability and in many cases probably could not be laid out in a readable and neat manner. Now, re: Dirtlawyer1's Tone. I have remarked on it before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records and I will again say that these debates are suppose to be rational, civil, and respectful. Referring to my points as "wrong-headed and self-serving" abridge the respectful tone of this dialogue and I appreciate Cbl62 pointing it out. I see the points Dirtlawyer1 is making, but I disagree with them. There is room for reasonable people to look at rules and come to different interpretations. Someone who disagrees with you is not therefore wrongheaded or self-serving. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Can you give some examples of this significant coverage, context, etc? No offense, but people's understanding of what "significant coverage" means can vary wildly, and you haven't provided any sources that one could easily double check. (And in regards to other editors conduct, this is not the venue for that. This is strictly for discussing the article in question.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • So, I don't have links for the Iowa page and I am not inclined to edit up the Alabama and Michigan pages in the middle of a deletion debate since my efforts will likely be wasted. I'd say see the reference links on Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records for what a well-sourced page could look like. It has some online articles though, typically, series records are discussed in reference books as a part of discussion of team history (which is probably why book length treatments are typical) In the case of Notre Dame there is also frequent coverage of individual records against notable non-rival teams. If the notes on the ND page don't constitute "significant coverage" of their series record, I am not sure what "significant coverage" of it would mean. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 07:20, 29 January 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iowa_Hawkeyes_football_series_records&oldid=1068868779"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Iowa Hawkeyes football series records

Iowa Hawkeyes football series records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages because [they are of the same sort and have the same issues]:
Alabama Crimson Tide football series records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michigan Wolverines football series records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michigan State Spartans football series records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As Dirtawyer1 put it during the similarly executed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wildcats football series records "Non-notable list subjects that fail WP:GNG and WP:LIST, for lack of significant coverage of the the list subjects as a group in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Moreover, these lists of statistics also violate the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NOTSTATS, to wit:

"Wikipedia articles should not be . . . [e]xcessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely." Another Previous AfD discussion along these lines also took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records which was also closed as delete. UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 06:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nominator's argument and precedent of similar recent AfDs. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is a consensus that we should not have these "series results" lists. I favor our exercise of editorial judgment to avoid such articles because (i) of concerns about maintenance as the data is massive and changes with great frequency, and (ii) the same data is published off Wikipedia by organizations better equipped to perform regular data updates. I do not, however, agree that WP:NOTSTATS is a proper rationale for deleting. The purpose of NOTSTATS is to require context for stats and to avoid pure data dumps. The introductory sentence of NOTSTATS emphasizes precisely this: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." That issue could be fixed by adding contextual narrative text. Using NOTSTATS as a rationale is short-sighted and unnecessarily renders other highly notable statistical lists subject to challenge. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note: The same concerns apply with equal force to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • This is not true. Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records passes notability requirements in accordance with WP:LIST since it is discussed in books about the team (see the references). Editorial judgment under WP:PAGEDECIDE does not trump general notability. Information contained in that page (specifically the context information and its accompanying references not) are not available on the statistics webpages you are referring to. Those pages tend to lack any such context. Finally, concern about maintaining the information for that page is also idle since it is no more problematic than updating a season record for that team. It is true that maintaining such pages for every college football team would be massive undertaking, but there is no need to since series records are not notable for all teams (e.g., UMASS and the Charlotte Bobcats both had series pages and were of dubious notability). Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 11:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
There are four elements to the Iowa page: (1) all-time record (duplicated from the main Iowa Hawkeyes football article); (2) all-time record against Big Ten opponents (duplicated from the main Iowa Hawkeyes football article); (3) record by opponent (the point under discussion, as to which there is a consensus to delete); and (4) record against conferences (a new twist that, if worthwhile [I have no strong view], could be added to the main Iowa Hawkeyes football article). Cbl62 ( talk) 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete these pages are examples of excessive listing of statistics. I suppose it is a curiosity to know that the Alabama Crimson Tide football program is a solid 1-0 against the 2nd Ambulance Company of Ohio... but these pages appear to be just a copy of other pages that already exist on the internet.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination here, and the conclusions at the other example AFDs. Excessive stats listing, not fitting for an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete I have disagreed with this sort of editorial judgment in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records ) and I disagree with it here. The page needs more context and more citation to clearly demonstrate notability in accordance with WP:LIST, but lack of citation does not mean it fails notability. Furthermore, the concern about maintaining the information is idle since the page is clearly well-maintained. While it would be a massive task to maintain such information for all college football teams maintaining it for just teams that are notable is not. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 11:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Well then, can you provide more context, content, and sourcing that isn't redundant to the content at the team's parent article? These articles keep getting deleted partially because people cannot sufficiently do so. Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Adding context to a page in the middle of a deletion debate has not really accomplished much in the past (Note: I spent several hours trying adding context and references to the Texas page to no avail). Lack of context/sourcing, however, does not imply that such context/sourcing cannot be provided (see WP:GNG and WP:NPOSSIBLE ). I can't really speak to the Iowa page in particular (maybe ‎RhinoSpear79 can?), but there exists books on the history of Alabama, Michigan, and Notre Dame football that discuss all time records. When teams rank high on the all time records list, college football writers and historians talk about it. I agree that such lists should not exist for all teams since series records for many teams are not notable. It would be an over-generalization, however, to suppose that all such lists are not notable. In a similar way, most punters not notable, that doesn't mean all pages on punters should be deleted. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 08:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • At the end of the day, these lists fails on three counts:
1. The specific subject of these lists, e.g., the series win-loss records of the Iowa Hawkeyes football team, is not notable because it has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources as required by WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. The well-established notability of the parent football teams, e.g., Iowa Hawkeyes football, is irrelevant. And there has been ZERO evidence provided of significant coverage of these specific list topics. If there is no significant coverage of the specific topic in independent sources, then it's game over for this topic as a stand-alone article.
2. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, it is not a directory, and it is not a random list of statistics that editors find interesting. Wikipedia is supposed to be a general interest encyclopedia that provides summary coverage of notable subjects, including notable sports subjects. Some folks don't get this, and it is especially problematic for our various sports WikiProjects, many of which have active and even articulate members who don't grasp the difference between an encyclopedia that provides summary coverage of the most important elements of a notable sports topic, and a sports fansite on which fans can post any and all trivial information about a given sports subject. Notwithstanding various attempts to interpret WP:NOTSTATS out of meaningful existence, these are exactly the type of 99.9% trivial stats lists that are supposed to be excluded from Wikipedia. The idea that we may include whatever stats lists we want as stand-alone articles, regardless of notability, and regardless of their length or trivial nature, is wrong-headed and self-serving. Down that path lies the inclusion of the precinct election results for all 30,000 precincts in the United States for every national election if only we provide enough "context"; or lists of batting averages for every Major League Baseball player in history -- if only we provide enough "context". At some point the absurdity of it becomes apparent to most AfD participants even if they cannot articulate their reasoning.
3. As pointed out above, the most relevant elements of these lists -- win-loss records vs. rivals and conference opponents -- are usually already covered in the parent team articles. And that's as it should be in a general interest encyclopedia. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
We agree on at least one count -- that "series record" lists probably do not satisfy WP:NLIST and therefore ought to be deleted. (Based on Shatterdaymorn's concerns, I'll reserve judgment on the Notre Dame list.) That said, your other comments raise broader concerns. A few points:
1. Randomness. You characterize the list at issue as a "random list of statistics". I disagree that "randomness" is the problem. The word "random" means: (a) "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern" or (b) "of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen." See here. The list presently under review is entirely coherent, has a definite focus and pattern, and is the very antithesis of a "random list of statistics." Accordingly, "randomness" is not a separate basis (or, indeed, any basis) for deletion here.
2. General interest. You assert that Wikipedia is "a general interest encyclopedia". As explicitly noted in WP:FIVEPILLARS (Wikipedia's core principles), Wikipedia is not solely a "general interest encyclopedia". To the contrary, it "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." We do not limit our coverage of physics or medicine to items of "general" as opposed to "specialized" interest; nor should we apply such limits to our coverage of sports. The limits of WP:GNG and sound editorial judgment are sufficient to ensure that things don't go too far afield. We do not need a new, arbitrary, and hopelessly subjective "general interest" limitation on what topics can or can't be included in Wikipedia.
3. Summary coverage vs. comprehensive coverage. You say that Wikipedia is limited to "summary coverage". If you are simply echoing the principle set forth in WP:NOTEVERYTHING, that's fine. We don't need truly trivial information, even in an article about an important subject. However, as set forth at WP:FACR, our best articles endeavor to provide "comprehensive" coverage that "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." The phrase "comprehensive summary coverage" is the goal set forth in WP:ARTDEV. Of course, there is tension between "summary" coverage and "comprehensive" coverage on topics of note. We want "major details," but not "trivial details." This is a matter of editorial judgment in which some matters are clear but many others fall into a gray area where reasonable minds can and do differ. Everything is not black and white.
4. NOTSTATS. I assume you are referring to me as the one "attempt[ing] to interpret WP:NOTSTATS out of meaningful existence." That is simply not so. It is the deletionists who sometimes try to morph NOTSTATS into something that it is not, i.e., a prohibition on statistical listings. On its face, the legitimate and meaningful function of NOTSTATS is clear: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." In no way, shape or form is this an assertion that lists of data/statistics don't belong on Wikipedia. Indeed, NOTSTATS expressly describes the remedies for excessive listings of statistics, including adding "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context" and "using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Moreover, and as noted above, our core policy at WP:FIVEPILLARS expressly states that Wikipedia properly includes "many features of ... specialized almanacs". Bear in mind, however, neither I nor anyone is arguing that non-notable statistical lists have any place on Wikipedia. Therein lies the key distinction. IMO, the proper analysis is under WP:GNG and WP:NLIST with the added option in rare instances of exercising editorial judgment under WP:PAGEDECIDE against a stand-alone list/article. Bottom line: If statistics are not sufficiently notable, they ought not be the subject of a stand-alone list. If statistics are sufficiently notable, NOTSTATS is not a bar, it simply requires appropriate contextualization. If the deletionist approach to NOTSTATS were to be embraced, important and notable statistical lists would be equally in jeopardy, e.g., List of NCAA football records, List of NHL statistical leaders, List of National Football League rushing yards leaders, List of Major League Baseball career runs batted in leaders, List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders, Lists of tennis records and statistics, etc.
5. Tone. As you sometimes do, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Those who disagree with you "can't grasp" what an encyclopedia is. They just "don't get it." They are "wrongheaded" and "self-serving". Their statements are an "absurdity". I don't know if you're a transactional lawyer (one who spends most of his/her time in the office drafting documents) or a litigator who regularly argues cases in court. If you are the latter, you would presumably know that such attacks do little to advance your case; they are more likely to alienate judges and jurors who tend to assume that those resorting to such arguments are either bullies or have no substantive case and must resort to other tactics. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
These are good well-reasoned points and agree with your assessment. I think ultimately you are correct and the case rests on WP:NLIST and notability. Such an argument, however, does not give general grounds for deleting all such series history pages which is how some people seem to be using it. It only gives grounds to delete such pages on a case by case basis. If notability can be established, then the page should be kept. I think notability can be established for some of them (i.e., Alabama, Michigan, and Notre Dame), but that is because I have seen the books discussing it. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 08:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Cbl62, as you have sometimes done, you have chosen to personalize an argument. You're obviously a litigator, but you have a rather unfortunate habit of making on-wiki arguments about you when they are not. If you perceive yourself as the target of the very accurate and fair criticism above, sorry, but that's on you. The only criticism that I actually intended for you is your misinterpretation of WP:NOTSTATS, which has needed to be corrected since you first announced it last summer. In several AfD discussions since then, you have emphasized the first introductory sentence of WP:NOTSTATS to the virtual exclusion of the rest of the introduction and the four subsections applicable to fictional works, song lyrics, statistics, and software updates. Yes, statistical lists require context, but lists of stats may still be excluded when they are "excessive" even if they have explanatory text, and this is made perfectly clear by the examples provided by NOTSTATS. For an extreme example, yes, U.S. presidential election results are notable, but, no, there is no amount of "context" you could provide that would justify listing the presidential election results for all 30,000 polling precincts on Wikipedia, because that list of statistics would be excessive by any reasonable measure. Bottom line: the two clauses are intended to operate independently of each other: (1) excessive stats lists may be excluded, and (2) those lists of stats which are not "excessive" still must be placed in context with sufficient explanatory text. Likewise, the third subsection applicable to excessive stats lists operates in a very similar fashion to the other three subsections of WP:NOTSTATS: (1) exclusion of detailed recitations of every minor plot point of fictional works; (2) exclusion of complete song lyrics; and (3) exclusion of complete software updates. Just as there is no amount of "context" that may justify the inclusion of "excessive" stats lists, there is also no amount of context that justifies the inclusion of complete recitations of every detail of your favorite novel, complete song lyrics, or complete lists of software updates. It's not an accident these four subtopics are grouped together under the section heading "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Regarding my statement that Wikipedia is a "general interest encyclopedia," quoting WP:FIVEPILLARS does nothing to refute the fundamental validity of that statement. Just because Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" does not make it a "sports almanac" wherein it is appropriate to include excessively long lists of sports statistics, as if it were The Big Book of College Football or the like. Including features of an almanac does not mean that Wikipedia is an almanac, nor does including some features of an almanac justify the inclusion of every long list of sports stats that any editor may imagine, compile, or find elsewhere and copy to Wikipedia. WP:NOTSTATS is clearly intended as a limitation on exactly that sort of excessive stats lists. If that leaves certain sacred cows among existing sports stats lists vulnerable, then perhaps we should (a) critically review the notability of such list topics per GNG and LISTN, and (b) contemplate the re-structuring of those lists so that they are both notable and not "excessive". For present purposes, it is enough to say that the complete listing of the Iowa Hawkeyes' 182 series win-loss records (not 124 as indicated) and mostly trivial related data points is clearly excessive and unnecessary. Perhaps we need to amend WP:What Wikipedia is not to include the statement that "Wikipedia is not the Iowa Hawkeyes Football Media Guide.
As for the other mostly tangential points you raised, I stand by every word I wrote above, and nothing I wrote is inconsistent with the guidelines cited by you. I should thank you, however, for sharing your stereotypes of litigators and transactional attorneys; I somehow missed those differences during my four years of law school and nearly 20 years of practice. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I did not personalize anything. I wasn't sure who the ad hominem attacks were directed at. My point is a more general one, i.e., that it is best to keep discussion to the topic rather than the person. The point was meant as constructive advice, and you are, of course, free to take or leave it. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
BTW, I do believe that it is still a fundamental rule of statutory construction to interpret a rule, regulation, ordinance, statute or law as a whole, and not piecemeal, so as to give effect to each element to the fullest extent possible. Your interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS, which you evidently believe to be the only reasonable interpretation, makes the words "excessive" and "excess" meaningless, because no list of stats, regardless of its length, could ever be excessive if it were only a matter of providing written explanation sufficient to provide context. Perhaps you may want to keep that in mind while you're working to convince the judges and jurors of the correctness of your new and novel interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS. Which, of course, is constructive advice you are free to take or leave. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Just back from happy hour and feeling good (kick ass margaritas and guac at Carmelita's in Laguna Beach!) You are a smart guy, Dirtaywyer. My advice to you is sincere, really and truly. If you could just cut out the ad hominem attacks, the heavy-handed snarkiness, the f--- bombs, and the smarter-than-everyone-else attitude, you could be a great Wikipedian. There are lots of smart people here. Everyday, smart guys need to tell themselves, "I am pretty g-- d--- smart, but there are lots of other smart and dedicated people here, and some who are ... maybe, possibly ... actually smarter than me. I need to listen more and not always assume that I know what is best." ,,. Cue to either sneer or take to heart. Up to you. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • For what is is worth re: WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. The following is a sample of books that discuss series results for college football teams: Alabama ("University of Alabama Crimson Tide Football: History, Traditions and Notable" by Reese, "Always Alabama: A History of Crimson Tide Football" by Wade, "The Crimson Tide: The Official Illustrated History of Alabama Football" by Groom and Castille)), Michigan ("Michigan Football: The History of the Nation's Winningest Program" by Rosenberg, Dailey, et al., "100 Things Michigan Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die" by Chengelis), and Notre Dame ("The Notre Dame Football Encyclopedia: The Ultimate Guide to America's Favorite College Team" by Marder, Spellman, and Donovan, "The Notre Dame Football Encyclopedia: 4th Edition." by Steele, "The Notre Dame Fighting Irish" by Stewart, "Echoes of Notre Dame Football" by Garner). These works mainstream works that satisfy the Significant coverage, Reliability, Sources, and Independent of the subject requirements. These works only represents a selection of the literature. There is more out there. I presume such books probably exist for Iowa though I don't own them. So, given notability, there is a presumption in favor of keeping them. This presumption can be undermined by concerns associated with whether "it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." These lists don't represent "indiscriminate collections of information" since they are discriminate (see Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information). Are they excessive statistics? The concern WP:NOTSTATSBOOK focuses on "readability and neatness". These lists do not seem unreadable or non-neat despite being large. They are fairly well organized and easy to understand. The fact that they are sortable helps. With sufficient context, these lists do not represent a sprawl of confusing data. The "down that path lies" argument seems to a slippery slope argument suggesting that if we let these articles in there will be some sort of chaotic mess and we must let all sorts of sprawling lists like "batting averages for every Major League Baseball player in history" or "precinct election results for all 30,000 precincts". This is not a good argument. Such problematic list would not pass general notability and in many cases probably could not be laid out in a readable and neat manner. Now, re: Dirtlawyer1's Tone. I have remarked on it before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records and I will again say that these debates are suppose to be rational, civil, and respectful. Referring to my points as "wrong-headed and self-serving" abridge the respectful tone of this dialogue and I appreciate Cbl62 pointing it out. I see the points Dirtlawyer1 is making, but I disagree with them. There is room for reasonable people to look at rules and come to different interpretations. Someone who disagrees with you is not therefore wrongheaded or self-serving. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Can you give some examples of this significant coverage, context, etc? No offense, but people's understanding of what "significant coverage" means can vary wildly, and you haven't provided any sources that one could easily double check. (And in regards to other editors conduct, this is not the venue for that. This is strictly for discussing the article in question.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • So, I don't have links for the Iowa page and I am not inclined to edit up the Alabama and Michigan pages in the middle of a deletion debate since my efforts will likely be wasted. I'd say see the reference links on Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records for what a well-sourced page could look like. It has some online articles though, typically, series records are discussed in reference books as a part of discussion of team history (which is probably why book length treatments are typical) In the case of Notre Dame there is also frequent coverage of individual records against notable non-rival teams. If the notes on the ND page don't constitute "significant coverage" of their series record, I am not sure what "significant coverage" of it would mean. Shatterdaymorn ( talk) 07:20, 29 January 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iowa_Hawkeyes_football_series_records&oldid=1068868779"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE