Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lock Haven Bald Eagles 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 redirect to Lock Haven Bald Eagles football. Going with the redirect as an WP:ATD. I am not convinced the the subject meets WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lock Haven Bald Eagles 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 not notable enough for a standalone article, per WP:NSEASONS: "A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.". Lock Haven finished the season 1-9 in a Division II conference, with no postseason appearance, in a non-division I conference, so it doesn't meet criteria for it's own article space. Spf121188 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do understand the viewpoint that this could meet WP:GNG, but the references in the article are in large part reports on individual games, which you could find for any team in any Division/Conference in the publications that cover them, and doesn't speak to widespread notability. I also understand the impulse to want to keep these individual season pages for Division II or III teams, but this article clearly and indisputably fails NSEASONS. Spf121188 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: There's no need to have a separate !vote, the fact that you nominated it for deletion serves as your !vote. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it fails NSEASONS, I believe it meets the general notability criteria with coverage from The Daily Item, the Williamsport Sun-Gazette, and The Record (see the refs in the article). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found coverage from The Slate and The Reading Eagle. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth nothing that The Slate article is covering Shippensburg University, as it appears it's a school newspaper for them, and it's also only covering an individual game report, for when they played Lock Haven, so this can't be considered independent.Spf121188 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment this might be a case where a merge decision would be proper--to send the information to a combined article such as the year in the conference, to the team artile, or maybe to a block of years. I believe an argument can be made that the subject matter surpasses WP:GNG, but I would instead propose a different solution that would keep the information and find hte best way to retain it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a Division II team with a 1-9 record. In other words, a less than run-of-the-mill season for a fourth-tier team, i.e., Tier 1 Power 5 > Tier 2 Group of 5 > Tier 3 FCS > Tier 4 Division II). In the internet era, many (maybe most) "high school" teams get the type of coverage that we see presented in this article, and we aren't creating or endorsing articles on those. I believe that season articles for these fourth, fifth- and sixth-tier programs should be restricted to cases where there is an extraordinary achievement (i.e., national champion or perhaps a runner up) or where the SIGCOV showing is particularly strong and clearly independent. Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Lock Haven Bald Eagles football team is just as bad (or worse) and should also be deleted IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lock Haven Bald Eagles football since redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:00, 23 November 2021 (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.