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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

1967 Whitewater State Warhawks football team

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

1967 Whitewater State Warhawks football team (  | 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)

No indication there is anything but routine coverage of this routine collegiate sports season. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep sources are far beyond basic stats and transactions, feature articles on the topic are WP:NOTROUTINE. Looks like enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. There might be an argument to make Wikipedia better by grouping this season with others or merging to make a conference article or something... but those are really editing issues.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, easily meets GNG per the sources in the article. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Rebuttal Routine local match coverage is not SIGCOV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    You may not agree, but coverage like this is usually considered significant in CFB, see the similar AfD Cbl listed below. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not going to dig through all of them, but let's just start with the first three:
    1. [1] Routine (if detailed) play-by-play coverage of the final game of the season in a local Wisconsin paper
    2. [2] Interview of the team's coach after a defeat
    3. [3] A four paragraph routine match report
    None of these is SIGCOV and none of these demonstrates how this is anything but WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Glancing at the titles of the rest, doesn't look like there's much different. If you disagree, then please find WP:THREE sources which do actually meet SIGCOV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Since several of the articles exceed the standard in WP:ROUTINE (of simply posting "sports scores") and are actually full-length feature articles, they will do nicely. WP:SIGCOV is met, given the standard there is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The articles provided clearly address the topic directly and in detail.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Routine match coverage (such as the three sources I give above) is not SIGCOV; it is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. We don't have an article about every football or cricket or baseball game (even at the pro level), even if these surely attract "significant coverage", because this is an encyclopedia and not a sports database. WP:NSEASONS goes in the same direction, that this should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not routine match coverage. A few statistical factoids is not sufficient to establish that this is truly anything but an ordinary football season for an ordinary colegiate level team. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ RandomCanadian: Indeed, we don't have articles on every football game. Instead, and as a matter of overall editorial judgment, the sports projects have opted instead to organize such coverage into season articles which can include discussion or notable games played in that season. Eliminating season articles such as this would reverse that editorial judgment and thus encourage the proliferation of yet more stand-alone articles on individual games. As for your default argument of characterizing multiple, in-depth sources as "routine" or "run-of-the-mill", your argument appears to boil down to "I don't like season articles on college football, no matter how well sourced they may be." This stands in stark contrast to your more relaxed view of notability when it comes to little-known (or unknown) pieces of 19th century organ music. E.g., Livre d'orgue de Montréal -- a sub-stub you created three months ago sourced only to the text of the work itself. Should GNG be applied less rigorously to music than sports? Cbl62 ( talk) 14:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Cbl62: Doing a simple search through JSTOR (or even looking at the very first google search result, [4], or maybe you prefer a book-length treatise on this single work) would have shown you that sources exist, and notability is not based on whether the sources are in the article or not. Hence, you clearly haven't done any research to back up your dubious and insulting ad hominem that this is done out of a personal grudge. Again, we don't have individual articles on individual games based on routine match reports, even if they cover their topic significantly. We don't have "season" articles which are merely compilations of such routine local newspapers reports. I could have also cited WP:NOTNEWS. Of course, you're a stubborn inclusionist and I'm probably wasting my time. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Your penchant for name-calling ("stubborn inclusionsist", "close-minded", "wiki-lawyering") really don't advance your case. And if you check my AfD stats, you'd see that I vote "delete" more often than "keep" in sports AfDs (and actually initiated the AfD on the 1968 Whitewater season). In the future, consider leaving the personal comments behind. As for that organ piece, you are often fond of criticizing others for creating main-space articles without GNG-level sourcing. So I assume you'll be adding that sourcing promptly to your sub-stub? Cbl62 ( talk) 14:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I previously nominated another Whitewater season at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1968 Whitewater State Warhawks football team. I ended up withdrawing the AfD when additional sourcing was brought to the fore. This one looks like it's heading to the same result. I continue to believe that the vast majority of lower-division seasons do not warrant season articles, but Whitewater (for whatever reasons) appears to be an exception that does attract SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources across the State of Wisconsin. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. After digging further, the topic attracted abundant SIGCOV, a sampling of which has now been added to the article. I continue to believe that routine, low-level seasons should not all have stand-alone articles, but the coverage here clearly passes GNG. Also, the team won the conference championship and set new conference records for defense. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per arguments by Paulmcdonald, BeanieFan11, and Cbl62. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ RandomCanadian: Your GNG point is pretty well refuted. You also rely on WP:NOTSTATS, and I'm at a loss to understand how that might apply. It states: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Here, there are no listings, let alone excessive listings, of unexplained statistics. Can you explain how you think NOTSTATS applies? Cbl62 ( talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    A table only listing routine match results (which is what the article mostly consists of) is a blatant failure of NOTSTATS. Even the (very small amount of) accompanying prose isn't much more than a few statistical factoids. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ RandomCanadian: Can you point to the specific language in WP:NOTSTATS that supports such an interpretation? "Unexplained statistics"? No. Confusing due to "reduced readability"? No. Absence of "explanatory text providing context"? No. If you're not just making stuff up, please cite the language that supports your interpretation. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Stop wikilawyering based on close-minded text reading and follow the goddamn spirit of the thing. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." A mere listing of results, and a few sentences which basically reduce to statistical factoids (the won-lost record, a few statistical points, the number and name of non-notable players who were selected to the league's [similarly non-notable and entirely routine] "all-star" team), all based on databases and local newspapers, do not provide "encyclopedic value" nor are they from significant and independent sources. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ RandomCanadian: The quoted passage about context in no way applies to this article which has ample context. And your angry accusations of "wikilawyering" and "close-mindedness" bring to mind the old trial lawyer's adage: "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table." Cbl62 ( talk) 14:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    If the facts are on your side, it should be mind-boggingly simple to address it: find WP:THREE sources which explicitly demonstrate how this is not a run-of-the-mill collegiate sports season. Local newspapers, match reports, interviews, ..., don't count. US college sports are not exempt from this. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Which guideline is it that says local newspapers don't count? Oh yeah, repeated efforts to make such a change have been resoundingly defeated with the exception of WP:NORG which doesn't apply here. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you claim that this is more than a run-of-the-mill sports season, then it kinda entirely defeats your point if it wasn't noticed by anyone but local newspapers... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports database, and if the only thing that can be said about this is "it happened, here a few statistical factoids of no interest but to dedicated fans", then, yes, it fails inclusion criteria. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Still waiting for you to cite the policy or guideline on local coverage. The answer is???? 14:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    This isn't a court of law. Common sense must prevail at some point. If there is nothing but coverage in local sources, then the argument that this is 'significant coverage' is self-defeating: something that is encyclopedically notable usually has more than coverage in merely local sources. College football is played every single year by thousands of teams. If this season is encyclopedia worthy, then surely it should have some outstanding characteristic and not yet be just another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stats-dump (which is what the article is right now). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree that this isn't a court of law. It's an AfD discussion at Wikipedia, and we have policies that guide us in these discussions. Those policies and guidelines simply do not support your position here. Since those policies and guidelines don't support your position, you instead appeal to "common sense", which is really in this case nothing more than your subjective dislike for the topic. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have given plenty of policies and guidelines (which you choose to ignore and then interpret very legalistically), but you seem to prefer ignoring them and pointing at "significant coverage" without even bothering to address how it actually isn't significant coverage, nor the WP:NOT issue (which is independent of any notability issue). Wikipedia is not a compendium of routine, insignificant events which just so happen to be reported in local newspapers. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Actually, you've given plenty of personal opinions, but you have not any policies or guidelines to support your assertion that the abundant SIGCOV in the article should be disregarded because it comes from multiple newspapers throughout the State of Wisconsin (a state which, by the way, has a population larger than Ireland, New Zealand, and a hundred other countries). Cbl62 ( talk) 15:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ RandomCanadian:, it's unfair and inaccurate to state that editors have not addressed the issues you have brought up when indeed they have. It's okay to disagree with the responses--but it's not okay to say there are no responses. Let us all work to be WP:CIVIL in our disagreements.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 12:00, Ir20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep As several other editors have stated, the season has significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, as evidenced by the article's references. There's no provision in GNG that the coverage must be published outside of certain geographic areas, or that there can't be too many other related topics with similar levels of coverage, or any of the other arguments I've seen time and again at AfD to claim that certain sources don't count for one reason or another.
As an aside, there's a reason why Whitewater football attracts more coverage than you'd expect for a team that's now in Division III. Wisconsin is unusual in that UW-Madison is the only college in the state to play football at the DI or DII level; in most other large states, the smaller public universities also play at one of those two levels. As a result, a few of Wisconsin's public schools have had much more football success and media coverage than you'd expect for a DIII school, with Whitewater probably being the most successful of the lot. Before the NCAA split into three divisions in 1973, the Wisconsin public schools would occasionally play and even beat schools that are now in DI; Whitewater itself beat now-FBS Central Michigan in its 1966 season. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 01:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes GNG as significant coverage is provided by several sources. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 19:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sourcing improved significantly since nomination. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is just an essay which I would counter by pointing out Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and this article appears to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 13:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as the substantial coverage in multiple independent sources clearly shows notability. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 20:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per comments above. Plenty of coverage here to satisfy WP:GNG. Spf121188 ( talk) 21:07, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1967_Whitewater_State_Warhawks_football_team&oldid=1068153800"