Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985 Iowa Hawkeyes 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 snow keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Iowa Hawkeyes football team

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is one example among many (which I've randomly chosen as a test case) which are formulaic and which seem to be overly detailed. There are articles for every year of every college team in every sport going back to the 1800s. They contain details down to the names and numbers of all the players, and for specific games even the weather and the times and details of specific plays. The outcomes of these games are inconsequential for the rest of humanity, and the fact that in one game out of millions a particular person did one of the five things one can do in that sport at a particular time, can only be interesting to the most rabid fan of that sport and college team. This level of detail seems appropriate for a sports almanac, but not a general-interest encyclopedia. I think it would make sense to delete or merge these types of articles, and only keep the most important details, if any, in team articles and biographical articles on the players and coaches that are notable enough to have them. -- Beland (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The season easily passes WP:GNG and our notability guidelines as secondary sources took note of it. There's no exclusionary principle saying a topic isn't notable because the articles are too detailed. This is a straight-up "I don't like it" nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The season for a major college program is easily notable as one can find plenty of significant coverage on them. "Overly detailed" is not a rationale for deletion, nor should it be. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nom does not suggest a valid rationale for deletion and the article (as well as others like it) pass our notability standards. I suspect the answer to nom's test will become apparent rather quickly. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no policy basis given for deletion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant policy principle is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, though I'm surprised commentators didn't find that obvious. -- Beland (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, this article is the antithesis of indiscriminate information. See WP:DISCRIMINATE. Cbl62 (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cbl--this article is very discriminate--it focuses exclusively on one year of one team of college football. What's "obvious" is the article is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definiteness of scope is perhaps necessary but not sufficient to keep material from being "indiscriminate" in the sense of this policy. For example, an article that covers the daily temperature readings of the main weather station in Cincinnati, Ohio for a given year also has a clear, crisp, scope. But it's beyond the level of detail appropriate to a general-interest encyclopedia, even though those values were reported on local TV and in national media like the Weather Channel. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but "too much detail" is not the same as "indiscriminate collection of information" -- it's quite the opposite. So please understand our confusion when an argument is brought forth that doesn't apply at all. If the argument is "level of interest" I would respond with that's not a measure of notability because different people find different things to be interesting or uninteresting. Our standard of notability is largely accepted to be covered in the general notability guideline, which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - and that has been met. In addition to statistics, there is a commentary of preseason outlook and some other detail on games played. If you want to look at WP:IMPACT, note that Bill Snyder was an assistant coach that season and we can find sources pointing to that season's success being involved in his hiring at Kansas State. Many would argue that Bill Snyder as a head coach changed the college football landscape for many years to come.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that policy were applicable, you are still expected to actually mention it in the nom. As it stands, your nom rationale is based purely on your personal opinion. Besides, as others have already said, that policy is not applicable in this instance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a wikilawyer and this isn't a courtroom. Part of the reason for nominating one test article is to get input from editors familiar with notability in sports, since I don't participate in many deletion discussions and there might be precedents I'm not aware of. There's simply no way I could cite every relevant policy, and editors shouldn't have to know everything about every corner of the world and Wikipedia to start a discussion to find consensus. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beland, I think that much of the pushback here comes from your idea of what AfD is for. If you had checked the talk page of this article, it would have led you to an active wikiproject with notability guidelines and even a page answering many of the points you laid out in your nom. That project or some similar talk page is the appropriate place to discuss notability in sports and, as you say below, get a sense of what the standards for this type of article are. The wrong place is a single AfD that will have very little precedential value, and so to some this nom may come across as you unilaterally deciding that the notability of this type of article is in question. Again, I understand what you were thinking, I just think that the commenters here have a very different idea of what AfD noms should be used for--and that's why there's a strong reaction. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's actually quite helpful, even though that's categorized as an essay and not a guideline. As it turns out, there's also WP:NSEASON. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you are expected to cite every relevant policy. The problem is that your nomination statement cited zero policies. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope in the future, if someone nominates an article on a topic which is, say, obviously not notable, that the outcome will not depend on whether or not the nominator linked to the notability policy or said some magic words. These decisions really should depend on the merits and not the ability of the nominator to articulate a case. Otherwise, the results won't be consistent, and the project will waste the effort put into identifying inappropriate articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG, I see no resaon given by the nominator to delete the article that would apply to a policy, guideline, or anything else. Having details about the season actually points toward notability, not taking away from it. It looks more like the nominator is taking a position that is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. No policy-based reason given for deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and snowy keep per all of the above. This is an article about a top level Power Five team that won the Big Ten championship and was ranked in the top 10 in both polls. Easily passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep No reason given for deletion outside of 'this is what came up on 'I wanna delete' roulette'. Stop doing this as the basis for testing AfD on a article type you personally hate! Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: If you don't agree the article should be deleted, that's fine, but there's no reason to adopt a mocking tone. I certainly wasn't roaming Wikipedia looking for things to delete. I was actually cleaning up a large number of these articles when I started to notice the highly repetitive format and started to wonder if I should keep cleaning or if this material would all just be deleted some day anyway. Let's keep an atmosphere of respect for each other. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep / waste of time nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator admits that this is a test case, so this is borderline WP:POINT. "The outcomes of these games are inconsequential for the rest of humanity, and the fact that in one game out of millions a particular person did one of the five things one can do in that sport at a particular time, can only be interesting to the most rabid fan of that sport and college team" is nothing more than a long-winded way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No policy-based rationale to consider deletion has been provided, aside from a vague claim that this is indiscriminate information, which has been reasonably countered above. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, please assume good faith. It would have been far more disruptive to mass-nominate all such articles for deletion all at once, and I was trying to get a sense whether or not I was completely off-base before doing that. That's exactly what we did recently with future-fiction articles, except in that case people agreed the material should be deleted. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: I don't question your good faith in nominating this. However, given the strong consensus so far, you may want to consider withdrawing the nom so that all parties can move on to more productive endeavors. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a bad faith nomination either. We can handle a little discussion like this from time to time, but I also think it's past time to close it. I shudder to think of some of the foolish decisions I've made in my history on Wikipedia (makes this look like really nothing... which it really is nothing...), I can extend some grace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.