Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1887 Navy Midshipmen football team

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1887 Navy Midshipmen football team[edit]

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

No citations, no explanation of significance, results are already in the "Navy Midshipmen football" Wikipedia article-and there aren't any links to these pages from the main page. Who is automatically reviewing them? Arcticgriffin (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (or ~~merge~~) - In the absence of any substantive text that explains the 1887 Navy football season, and puts the season records table in context for our readers, this stand-alone article should not exist. Unless the article creator quickly adds sourced, substantive prose to this article, it should be deleted; that said, the closing administrator should userfy the existing content so that the article creator may merge the content to a multi-season Navy football article, or continue to build out a proper single-season article for the 1887 Navy football team in a userspace sandbox. Also, after deletion, a redirect should be created at this page name (linked to a multi-season article or the Navy football parent article), consistent with standard WikiProject College Football practice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my "delete" comment in light of recent improvements to this and the other single-season Navy Midshipmen articles that were created at the same time. I do so in the hope that (a) senior members of WikiProject College Football will not encourage the mass creation of no-source, no-prose articles in the future, and (b) the WikiProject will clarify its expectations/standards for stand-alone, single-season articles in the near term. There are already too many single-season CFB articles that skirt the minimum standards for prose content, sources, etc., applicable to all stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some members from Wikiproject College Football suggested splitting Navy Midshipmen football results as too large and unwieldy, so I copied each year of results and pasted them into each appropriate team year. I then nominated the results page for deletion, since it is now duplicative information. Article for deletion author is incorrect in stating results are already published on the "Navy Midshipmen football" page, only links to the pages I've created are on that page. Article does have a general reference to the Navy Media guide, as other team year pages have. Other FBS an FCS teams have completed year pages with simple text and results William & Mary Tribe football for example. All FBS and FCS teams have individual team year results pages from about 2011 forward. I wanted to preserve work on results page in a more concise and usable/readable format recognizing the work of the author who originated the article (which hasn't been updated in 3 years). As stated, links are provided to main page.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, William & Mary football (your linked example above) has decade articles from 1893 through 2008, not stand-alone single-season articles. Single-season college football articles -- especially with no prose -- are not universal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Dirtlawyer that we absolutely should not have articles with no prose whatsoever. The creation of multiple, single-season articles for the Navy football team, all done yesterday, was a mistake IMO. These articles should have been created with a bit more care. That being said, single-season articles on the major college football programs have become a standard and accepted practice for the major college football programs. Navy remains a top-level program in the modern era and was an even more important program historically. See, e.g., Navy's 1926 national championship team. Rather than delete, I have added some basic prose, an infobox, and a citation. I urge Pvmoutside to do the same for the remaining articles created yesterday. Cbl62 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: The notability of many, if not most individual Navy football seasons, including 1887, has not been demonstrated. As you know, the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) require that the topic have significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The Navy football media guide is a generally reliable source, but the media guide is not an independent source. If we're going to do this, let's show User:PVMoutside how to properly create and build out a stand-alone, single-season college football article that can survive proper notability and suitability analysis at AfD. Sorry to be a pain in the ass, Cbl, but as this article currently stands, your "keep" vote is unsupported by the guidelines for stand-alone articles. As a WikiProject, we need to stop trying to fudge the universal notability and suitability requirements of the guidelines, and we should be setting an example for new editors like PVM. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did just set an example for new editors. Thanks. The 1887 Navy article is now in better shape than 90% of the Michigan single-season articles when they were first created. Of course, more can be done, but remember, it takes time to build an encyclopedia -- it's taken over five years to build out the Michigan articles, and that effort is still under way. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: "set an example for new editors": significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources?

Let's be clear, Cbl. Yes, I absolutely appreciate your willingness to help PVM; good on you. You're a good man and a good editor, counselor, but your "keep" vote is not presently supported by the applicable guidelines. We're not doing anyone any favors when we encourage an inexperienced editor to create 100+ no-text, no-independent-sources articles. You, JW and every other experienced CFB editor already knows this, and now we're trying to fudge the situation. Every single one of these 100+ articles is subject to being nominated for deletion at AfD, and the nominator(s) would be correct. If anyone starts nominating all 100+ of them, or any significant number of them at a time, it will become a full-time job to defend from deletion and fix them. In doing so, we are committing the WikiProject's credibility and the time of its members; if we are unwilling to do that, we are not doing anything more than trying to pull the wool over the eyes of other discussion participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"trying to pull the wool over the eyes of other discussion participants": uh, no ... adding accurate text, creating an inbox, adding sources (including an article from The Sun (New York). Not sure how you can construe that as pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: In fairness to my previous "wool" comment, Cbl, The New York Sun reference was not in the article 35 minutes ago, having been added at 11:58. That said, with your recent additions, the article now arguably satisfies the minimum notability and suitability criteria for a stand-alone article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, The Sun article was added at 15:58, and you wrote your "pulling the wool" comment at 16:20, but in light of your latest comment ("the article now arguably satisfies the minimum notability and suitability criteria"), I trust you will now withdraw your "Delete" vote? Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. FYI, my article edit pages are set to EDT, not GMT; hence your 15:58 GMT, my 11:58 EDT, and your California reality of 8:58 PDT. Please see my comments on your user talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to withdraw your "delete" vote. To ensure that the withdrawal is understood by the closing admin, it would help if you were to ~~strike~~ your "delete" vote above. Cbl62 (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I will strike it, Cbl, after someone adds a second example of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source to the article to demonstrate that the criteria of GNG have been satisfied. If you don't have time now, I may search Newspapers.com while I'm taking a break from work in the library later this afternoon. Having come this far, the article will comply with the minimum GNG standards so that the point is fully made before I ~~strike~~. As I said on your talk page, I'm being pointy, and I know it, but the point needs to be made for everyone's benefit. I have no intention of having this same argument 100+ times over these no-independent-source, no-text Navy articles over the next several years. Once is enough for me; I just want the standard to be understood and accepted when we're done here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DL, the idea that notability of this article was ever really under question is absurd. Are you aware that the six Navy season articles prior to 1887 are all Good Articles, and they are supported by an array of reliable sources that cover long periods including 1887? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Absurd?" No, not at all. An un-sourced, no-prose article that consists of nothing more than a season schedule is an engraved invitation for an AfD nomination per NOTSTATS and other guidelines, and a perfect candidate for a "merge" or "delete" outcome, depending on the sources produced and content added during a pending AfD discussion. In fact, in the absence of text that states the importance of the article subject, the article is also a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:7. The experienced editors who are participating in this discussion, including you, all know that no-source, no-text articles are problematic for multiple reasons; that's why three editors just spent the last three days bringing these 100 or so articles in compliance with the guidelines and the minimum standards of WikiProject College football. And "notability" is not the only measure of suitability for a stand-alone article, nor is "delete" the only possible outcome of an AfD; "merge" is an alternative for related articles with minimal content, especially when they share what sources they have. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's absurd unless one's primary goal is obtuse pedantry and associated legislating instead of simply doing the work to improve the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, properly format, and expand. I agree that the execution on the breakup of Navy Midshipmen football results was not ideal, but these individual seasons are notable and should exist as articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: No, before we keep it, the article needs to be properly expanded, formatted and sourced first. Horse, then cart. We now have 100+ Navy football single-season stubs, most of which will not survive AfD in their present condition. If you want to keep them, start fixing them. I'm not going to nominate them for AfD, but there is a lot of work to do. These no-text, no-independent-source stub articles should not have been encouraged. Until they are fixed, every single one of them is subject to being nominated for AfD by third-party editors, and the nominators would be correct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DL, as I understand it, AfD is for articles that should not exist, principally for lack of notability, not for articles that have a notable subject, but are in poor form. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: That is correct, JW, and no one has demonstrated the notability of the 1887 Navy season, or any other one of the 100+ season articles that have just been created. Where is the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources? As of 12:15 PM today, it's not to be found in any of these articles.

My suggestion: help PVM fix this -- with independent sources -- so that he has some sort of decent example to work from, and I'll shut up and withdraw my !vote. But let's not pretend this is not a problem for the WikiProject, because it is, and we all know it is. I have neither the time nor the will to defend 100+ articles in AfDs when they were not properly created, and it undermines our credibility with other editors outside the CFB WikiProject -- it makes it appear as if we believe the rules don't apply to us, and that doesn't win us any allies when we need them for other discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry about not cutting in earlier, I haven't had much wiki time. As WP's Navy football guy, I think I could help with all this. All of the season articles need work, a lot of work. I'll try to work on 1887 as soon as I get a chance. All of the seasons are notable. By a long shot. With these older ones, its just a matter of finding newspaper articles from the period to supplement what the books are saying. For 1887, for example: four games were played, three against rivals. Two games against the school across the street St. Johns, which were important in establishing the rivalry. A special Thanksgiving Day festival doubleheader with a very significant game against Johns Hopkins. It was the game where the rivalry started going south. Then, in the game against Princeton's backups, a Navy player attempted one of the first low tackles in the history of football; it ended up injuring one of the Princeton team's biggest guys. Among the sources: two books, written by sports historians, that have portions dedicated to this season, a couple other books with some information, and a couple of newspaper articles, mainly focusing on the JH game. Navy football became national news starting in 1890, and both the 1888 and '89 seasons had events that gained the team national coverage. It'll take someone a long time to go through and add at least an infobox and short summary to all 100-something articles, and unfortunately I just don't have the time to do all of them, but the seasons are notable, and it seems counterintuitive to delete them all just to recreate them a little later. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 00:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ATH, in a nutshell, the problem is this: no Wikipedia article should exist that has no text. Through bad advice at WT:CFB, we have encouraged the creation of 100+ single-season articles that have no text, no independent sources, no infoboxes, few if any links, and even the season schedules do not use the standard templates. The individual seasons may or may not be notable -- and remember that to demonstrate the notability of the individual season, the independent sources should have significant coverage of the season, not games, not coaches, not players, etc. -- but none of them should have been split into stand-alone articles, regardless of notability, without text and sources. Period. There is a readily available alternative. The seasons could have very easily been aggregated by decade or coaching tenure, that could have been split later as time and manpower were available; instead we have 100+ articles that are all in need of immediate attention, and need . . . well, everything. I'm glad you have an abiding interest in Navy football, ATH, because I suspect you will be the editor on whom most of this clean-up falls. And I have some idea how much time and effort that will take; five years ago, I cleaned up 95 seasons of Florida Gators football, and it took me something like 3 months of evenings and weekends, working constantly. Given the present constraints of my career, I no longer have that kind of available time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, if I could add, this whole situation complicates a problem I've been thinking about. Navy did not officially become the Midshipmen until 1902, so it is technically incorrect for the pages before then to be titled "xxxx Navy Midshipmen football team". However, a few of them are my GAs and are linked to a bunch of places, which complicates moving them, and simply titling them "xxxx Navy football team" seems too ambiguous. Thoughts? (plus, just to add on at the end, this is a real buzzkill, since I decided yesterday to make/bring all 30-40 notable articles for UAB to GA/FA/FL status) - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 01:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ATH, the different mascot names over time is a curable problem: for technical details, see how it was handled for the Stanford football teams. If my memory serves, Stanford has had at least four different nicknames or non-nicknames since the inception of the program in the 1890s. If you need other examples of changing nicknames, and how they were handled, drop me a line on my user talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I apologize for creating the 100 articles, but I really thought I was helping to create readable and workable information from an article Navy Midshipmen football results that has many of the problems Dirtlawyer lists for these 100 articles. I'd particularly be interested in Dirtlawyers comments on that article's deletion page. If anyone else would like to comment, it would be welcome. I'd also do plan to do work, as time allows, to format each Navy team year article to reach minimum standards. Alone, it will take me months to accomplish, as I have time for maybe 1 a day. It's nice to know others will also standardize the articles. As an aside, I am a seasoned Wikipedia editor beginning my involvement in 2006, but I am new to the College Football project, and didn't know about the rules for team years. That is why I added the note on the Wikiproject College Football page, and felt comfortable moving forward after receiving other comments from other editors. I also thought I was moving an article from a bad spot, to many in better ones, although still not ideal. If our collective efforts are moving too slow for any editor or admin, feel free to delete any not meeting your deadlines.......Pvmoutside (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to apologize for making a good faith effort and being WP:BOLD with article creation. Good job. Dirtlawyer's disagreements are valid points to consider, but that's why we have an online discussion. Disagreements happen.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this article has now been cleaned up and the issues no longer persist. I am not opposed to PROD'ing the other articles with no prose, however. They can always be recreated at a later date as people go about creating them. If someone is able to immediately provide clean-up, they can always de-PROD. ~ Rob^Talk 14:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, thanks to the efforts of Cbl62 and Pvmoutside, the majority of these articles now have an infobox and a short lead, and I think we can expect they all will within the next couple days at most. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only 25 of 100 left to go. I suspect all will have infobox, sourcing and some prose by tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Cbl. And Jweiss and PVM deserve credit, too, for bringing these articles up to the minimum standards for stand-alone, single-season stub articles. In the future, I trust we will not encourage the mass creation of non-compliant, no-text, no-source stubs that require an all-hands-on-deck corrective effort. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one encouraged the mass creation of non-compliant, no-text, no-source stubs. A suggestion was initially executed poorly and with haste, and then remedied. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an example of an article that needed expansion and additional material, not one that should be deleted because it was not notable. Clearly passes WP:GNG for historical value and exceeds notability standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62, Jweiss11, and Paulmcdonald. Regardless of how these came into existence, the bottom line is that any issues have now been fixed, so there's really no reason for any more hand-wringing over this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has improved to the point where it meets our guidelines. For what it's worth I think everyone is trying to do the right thing here between splitting up the big results article, creating the new ones, sending this one (it the form it was in at the time) to AFD, and especially to Cbl, Jweiss and PVM for all the work they did getting the articles up to snuff. We just need a little more discussion on what makes sense and what is managable when splitting these huge articles up. Chuy1530 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2015 (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.