Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union (Kentucky) Bulldogs football

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Union (Kentucky) Bulldogs football[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NSPORT. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Technically this article cannot fail WP:NSPORT since that guideline "does not cover sports teams". More importantly, a cursory examination at Newspapers.com shows consistent, varied coverage of this subject in reliable notable periodicals. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have specified that the subject doesn't meet any notability criteria including GNG. Also, any coverage you could provide is going to run into WP:ROUTINE. I meant to say that NSPORT doesn't have a carve-out for this subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sports team and part of a college program. WP:ROUTINE applies to the notability of events, whereas the policy for inclusion of sources is WP:Verifiability. Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. I'm generally skeptical about the notability of NAIA football programs, and when I learned about this AfD figured I'd find little or no coverage of the type needed under WP:GNG. I found that the program dates back more than 100 years and has received a fair amount of coverage: 2,680 hits on newspapers.com for ("union college" football barbourville). Didn't find anything in depth on the program. Examples of the coverage include (1) 1905 article about the first football game here; (2) 1928 article about a Union player having his chest crushed in a game here; (3) 1928 article from The Courier-Journal here; (4) 1930 article from The Cincinnati Enquirer here; (5) 1938 article from The Cincinnati Enquirer here; (6) 1938 article from the Chicago Tribune about the death of a Union football player here; and (7) 1942 article about decision to terminate program during WWI here. If more extensive coverage were to be found, I could be persuaded to switch to "keep". Cbl62 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kobra98 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the coverage offered above is routine, as in: "1928 article about a Union player having his chest crushed in a game" etc. This is not in-depth coverage about the program itself, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine" is a consideration for events, and this is not an event. Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "program itself", if the death of one of its players that gave national coverage to the program is not about the program? Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is far beyond score listings with feature articles. This is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 100 years of source coverage; and there are other articles on Wikipedia that cover this topic, so under policy there is no theoretical possibility that there is anything to consider with a deletion nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 100 years of significant coverage is more than enough. Smartyllama (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Skew towards keep.But a relisting would be good!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG to me, no reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, particularly Paul McDonald. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2017 (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.