The result was Delete all. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see why we need these pages sitting here for another year or two years or three years. Contested prod (the first one). ... discospinster talk 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Myths and facts about deletion
Myth: "Bad" articles get deleted in order to save space on Wikipedia.
Fact: On average, with all the discussions that take place, the process of getting an article deleted actually takes up more storage space than the article itself. Besides, once deleted, the discussion that led to the deletion remains permanently, and administrators still have access to the article. The real purpose of deletion is to restrict the encyclopedia to encyclopedic content.
Theworm777 (
talk) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
"I don't believe there is anything in
Five Pillars that arbitrarily limits articles to one season in the future in cases where there is verifiable information from independent sources for an article like
2015 Michigan Wolverines football season. The key point IMO is whether a future season "would merit an article if the event had already occurred." If the answer is yes,
we can change consensus from the past and avoid the practice of creating temporary holding articles. We first need to address whether the seasons are notable, we can then worry about behaviors in past AfDs." by
User:Bagumba
"I feel that these multi-year horizon future season schedule articles should exist if there are
WP:RS that provide content in need of being summarized. I believe that individual future season articles should exist when partial schedules, partial recruit commitments, and a modicum of news exists. I don't believe we should set a rule limiting our horizon to one year out although generally this will be the case." by
User:TonyTheTiger
The 2 comments above are from
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Request_for_Comment:_Material_on_future_football_seasons
Theworm777 (
talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
reply