Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 St. Norbert Green Knights 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 delete. If someone wants to merge this with similar pages I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 St. Norbert Green Knights football team[edit]

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator. I did not find convincing evidence of notability. It is not listed as an award-winning season.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412 T 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG based on my search of google news archive. See results here. St. Norbert is a Division III program (the lowest level in the NCAA hierarchy), and such teams generally do not get a lot of coverage in mainstream, independent media sources. A search of google news archive indicates that the St. Norbert football program does get some coverage in Milwaukee (and, to a lesser extent, Chicago) newspapers. If someone could demonstrate that there is substantial coverage of the 2008 team, I'd reconsider my "delete" vote. Separately, the article in its current form is more in the nature of an almanac entry than an encyclopedia article. The article merely repeats the information already published on the on-line sports almanac, college football reference.com. The existing article on St. Norbert Green Knights football is also in poor shape and could use substantial work. Cbl62 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Cbl's comment immediately above: this is a non-notable season for a minor college football program. The WP:CFB precedents are clear: in the absence of meaningful coverage (i.e. not routine, not trivial) in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG, single CFB seasons for minor programs do not get anything like an "automatic pass." And it's not supposed to be automatic for Division I FBS programs, either. We do make exceptions for non-notable seasons when they are combined with other seasons by decade, coaching tenure or some other logical and coherent grouping. If the article creator wants to have this article userfied so that he can work on expanding to a full decade of seasons (e.g. 2000-09), I would support that in keeping with established WP:CFB precedent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse. That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances. I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually.

FYI, it's not up to the nominator to "find alternative solutions to deletion," but rather to the article creator and those AfD participants who seek to retain the article content, in whole or in part. In the case of non-notable CFB seasons, the alternatives are well known and widely understood among WP:CFB participants; please see WP:CFBSEASON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of St. Norbert Green Knights football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main St. Norbert Green Knights football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2013 (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.