Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Huskies starting quarterbacks

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Huskies starting quarterbacks[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of statistics. WP:NOT#STATS Grsz¹¹ 01:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Huskies starting widereceiver.

Please provide some additional guidance, as every NFL team has this type of page as well as many (and a growing number of) college football programs. Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Sooners_starting_quarterbacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Detroit_Lions_starting_quarterbacks

Ideas for improvement including context for achievements of significant players and associated teams (bowl game participation, final rankings, etc).Pasadena91 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how many of their starting quarterbacks ended up in the NFL, is something of encyclopedic value. It counts as an almanac, one of the things Wikipedia wishes to be. WP:ALMANAC Dream Focus 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the list of Huskies' rushing leaders, I don't like the precedent of having a page for every position of every sports team that ever played -- whether its the stats of the UW quarterbacks, or Chicago Cubs shortstops, New York Giants' punters, etc. Other than creating a fansite of one's own, I don't see the purpose of having this type of page. This is WP:NOTSTAT, not much more than a listing of passing statistics with no context. Mandsford (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a list does not need to exist for every position or school. But, in this case, the sheer number of NFL players from one position or one school is of value. Jeff (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jeff. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS sets a poor precedent. Secret ^account 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per WP:NOT#STATs, "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". While the current article has insufficient text, there is plenty of scope to write reliably sourced text about the Huskies' starting QBs. So WP:NOT#STATS is a reason to expand/improve the article, not delete it. Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did not notice originally that List of Detroit Lions starting quarterbacks was included here. That is particularly distrubing, since virtually every NFL team has such a list and the universe of NFL teams is much smaller than for college teams. Furthermore, at least one such list, List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks, is a featured list, meaning there is consensus that the list meets all Wikipedia content guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the more notable NFL level. Grsz¹¹ 16:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that NFL is "more notable", but not sure college football is non-notable. That said, my comment was in response to List of Detroit Lions starting quarterbacks being included here, although rereading, that wasn't part of the nom, but a comment by another editor. Rlendog (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now, and made a break to avoid further confusion. Grsz¹¹ 21:23, 16 December 2009 (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.