Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1900–09

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 redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football. Sandstein 09:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1900–09[edit]

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

This article is no longer needed as each individual season now has it's own page. Originally they did not. This page has now been rendered redundant.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same thing for different decades:

Zaqwert (talk) 03:05, September 15, 2015‎ (UTC) Note that this AfD was not properly formed with the standard AfD nomination template, nor listed on the central AfD nomination queue, and did not appear on any of the AfD indexes as a result. I have added the proper AfD template header to this page and manually added nominator Zaqwert's signature, etc. [1], and listed this AfD nomination on the Articles for Deletion log [2]. Cbl62 has listed this AfD on the AfD lists for American football and Alabama-related deletion discussions, as noted below. Concerned editors should now be able to find this discussion via the usual notices. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the nominator is correct that there are separate articles for each individual season, these decade articles are now redundant. I would support either deleting all of them or redirecting them to the main Alabama Crimson Tide football article. Cbl62 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect, as described hereafter - These decade articles should be redirected to 1900 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1910 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1930 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1940 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1960 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1970 Alabama Crimson Tide football team and 1980 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, respectively, in order to preserve the edit history and proper licensing of previously created content of each of the 60 daughter articles that were split from the content on these decade pages. Furthermore, each daughter article should have it noted on the 60 daughter article talk pages that the content was split from the specific decade article and by means of a dummy edit summary inserted into the 60 daughter article histories. There are specific template notices for the talk page attributions for both parent and daughter articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football, per prior AfD precedent. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More is required, EJ. Please see explanation above. The content creator attribution of cut-and-pasted content must be preserved for copyright and Wikipedia free-licensing purposes. See explanation immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure that more is really required here. The individual season articles do not appear to be "cut-and-pasted" content, with the possible exception of the schedule, which is not copyrightable in any event. Instead, the individual season articles appear to be highly-detailed content, in most or all cases prepared by @Patriarca12:, bearing very little, if any, relationship to the old decade articles. In any event, I am fine with a "redirect" option, as noted above, though I think the idea of redirecting an article covering an entire decade to an article covering only one of the ten alleged "daughter" articles doesn't really make sense to me. A better option IMO is to redirect to the appropriate subheading of the true parent article, i.e., the decade article on the 1960s would be redirected to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Paul "Bear" Bryant era (1958–1982) and the decade article on the 1930s would be redirected to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Wade and Thomas (1923–1946). Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we can only have one redirect per page, the target page of the redirect is a judgment call if there are multiple credible options. Your suggested redirects of the Alabama football by coaching eras are as good as any, but present the obvious problem of split decades during the coaching tenures. Given that we have only one redirect per page, to what article or specific article section would the decade articles for the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1940s redirect? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Alabama person may have a better idea, but here would be my suggestions:

1900s and 1910s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Early 1900s

1920s and 1930s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Wade and Thomas (1923–1946)

1940s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Drew and Whitworth (1947–1957)

1960s and 1970s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Paul "Bear" Bryant era (1958–1982)

1980s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Perkins and Curry (1983–1989) Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the content is notable of each article. All that has happened is that each section of the history of the team is broken in to easily manageable and logical sections for separate articles. Merge or re-direct would result in one larger article of the same content, making maintenance, research, and retrieval of data much more difficult. Nothing to gain by redirect or merge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC) --- Delete and redirect. Nevermind, missed that each year article is also created.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Dirtlayer1. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All as described by User:Dirtlawyer1, which would seem to be safest option where it comes to maintaining correct attribution. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 11 October 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.