Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles[edit]

Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable sports program, the article might be keepable if the football program and its two seasons are merged into it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page. It is not much, I know. I was planning to redirect the page when it was reviewed as NPP. The contents of the two articles are identical. scope_creepTalk 00:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep, what's on your talk page is not a consensus. And the two articles are not identical. Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles football does not and should not contain content related to track and field or other sports aside from football. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on the Eagles could be expanded by moving/copying a chunk of University_of_Wisconsin–La_Crosse#Athletics. Pichpich (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have a long-standing habit of having articles for the intercollegiate athletic programs of four-year colleges at every level: NAIA, NCAA Div III, and larger. We have done this because such programs typically generate so much press that passing WP:GNG is almost a given. While I suppose it is possible that a 4-year college athletic program might not meet that standard, this program most certainly is not an exception as there are ample third party reliable sources for decades--perhaps even a century.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2022 (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.