Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1969 Houston Baptist Huskies baseball 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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 00:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Houston Baptist Huskies baseball team[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable baseball season. Run of the mill NAIA team. There's a lot of sources, but they're virtually all game logs. Prod contested, and the way the explanation reads it seems like a pet project, which is admirable but should perhaps be on the college's own site, not here. As an aside, " By your logic, numerous other articles of baseball seasons that resulted in zero playoffs or postseason conference tournaments should also be deleted." Yes, yes they should, we are overrun with borderline-notability season articles, and that's for Division I let alone NAIA. Wizardman 16:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Wizardman 16:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage is WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fair points. However, I am going to take a "libertarian" approach to this and say that there should be as many pages of these subjects as possible with self-governance. I believe there should be pages for all three levels of the NCAA as well as the NAIA. Under my proposition, there would still be some rules for qualification:

You must follow the same formatting protocol as a standard NCAA baseball season page, albeit it does not have to be quite as elaborate as, let's say, the 2023 LSU Tigers baseball team page. You would not be required to list each players height, weight, or where they attended high school.
No more than five missing dates in the game log (historical teams, pre-1980s). All games must still be listed in order.
All final game scores must be present.
All rosters must be filled-out with the first/last names and position(s).
For historical team pages, there must be a reasonable amount of sources outside of the school's athletic website. They must be reputable and formatted correctly.
The page must have proper grammar and formatting.

Theoretically, your team could go 1-40 and still qualify for a page, but an 0-41 team is more than likely to qualify for an article under the current format because they were winless, which is far less common in college baseball compared to football. The reason why I believe there should be an unlimited amount of baseball season pages (akin to how college football is treated on this site) is because creators will have more liberty to elaborate on a team's season. Wjenkins96 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ROTM for a minor sports team. Not a notable subject and a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. there should be an unlimited amount of baseball season pages (akin to how college football is treated on this site) This is a fundamental misconception. We do not have season articles on ordinary NAIA football teams. Typically, the college football project limits NAIA-level season articles to national champions (see Template:NAIA football national champion navbox) or teams with perfect seasons (see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/The Perfect Season). With a 15-16 record, the 1969 HBU team does not come close to meeting either of these criteria. With respect to a pure GNG analysis, I am unable to read the vast majority of the sources which require a subscription to genealogy.com; I'll admit it's an impressive and surprising number of citations but without being able to review them I can't accurately assess whether they constitute WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NORG, no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Routine game stories and normal database pages from BEFORE nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 23:57, 28 October 2023 (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.