Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Buffalo State Bengals 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 no consensus. but this was not a good bundling of AfDs. At a quick glance at least some of these articles look non-notable whilst others don't; individual articles should be sent to AfD and this can be done at any time after this AfD closes. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Buffalo State Bengals football team

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

Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. A similar discussion has already taken place on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chicago Maroons football team, and this nomination includes multiple articles on Division III college football seasons. Edge3 (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also non-notable Division III football seasons:

--Edge3 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Press coverage drops off exponentially as you go from Division I to II to III. Only perennial powerhouses/national DIII champs like Mount Union [1][2][3] and Wisconsin–Whitewater [4] get even a modicum of attention, and they don't have season articles. The 9-1 2009 St. Norbert Green Knights barely register on a few obscure sites. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails notability guidelines. —Ed!^(talk) 03:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did you people even look at the article and the sources? The first one, 2012 St. Norbert Green Knights football team has in its second source a college football game played in Ireland. That's significant. The remainder season articles I would personally rather Merge into conference season articles or into a combined article on the individual programs themselves, unless other information comes to the surface.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It might possibly be significant for a single game (though I'm inclined to consider it borderline WP:ROUTINE), but that's hardly enough to support an entire lackluster season. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Routine there's nothing routine about two college football teams traveling to Ireland for a regular season football game. Wanna transfer it to an article on the game itself, fine by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any of the NFL International Series games got a heck of lot more media coverage than these two schools in Ireland, but do you see any articles on them? Nope. Because, unlike real estate, location, location, location is not an overriding factor. It's what happens in the game. And what happened was routine. No 15 laterals. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please cease participation in AFD discussions until you learn to preview your comments. It's terribly misleading and others shouldn't have to check your work. 1 John Carroll 40, St. Norbert 3: Blue Streaks win big in Ireland, 2 College football: St. Norbert vs. John Carroll in Dublin, Ireland: Aug. 31, 2012, 3 College football: John Carroll will open its season as part of Global Ireland Football Tournament, 4 Video Update: St. Norbert FB in Ireland, 5 Saint Norbert defeats John Carroll in GIFT American Football match, 6 http://www.cleveland.com/university-heights/index.ssf/2012/08/john_carroll_university_opens.html, 7 John Carroll, Notre Dame College football teams open season with victories, 8 St. Norbert drops football opener in Ireland, 9 College football: St. Norbert vs. John Carroll in Dublin, Ireland: Aug. 31, 2012, 10 D-III goes worldwide: John Carroll arrives in Ireland, 11 College football: St. Norbert vs. John Carroll in Dublin, Ireland: Aug. 31, 2012, 12 John Carroll University participating in Global Football Tournament, 13 John Carroll, St. Norbert to open in Ireland, 14 John Carroll University football team heads to Ireland for game, 15 John Carroll football team in Ireland. A simple search turns up a whole lot more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Please cease ordering people about. You can't base the notability of a entire season on a single game, even assuming the latter is itself notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles have existing references, and lack of editor interest on other (potential) articles is NOT a valid reason to argue for deletion. WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts both ways, remember. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It is the established policy of WikiProject College Football, as expressed in WP:CFBSEASON, that articles for college football seasons that are marginally notable or not notable may be combined into clustered articles by decade or other logical grouping. None of these articles presently has enough substance to justify its existence as a stand-alone article; they are merely season schedules with brief introductions. Rather than arguing about notability and sources, let's follow the established precedent of WP:CFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles where notability is shown and merge the rest. Deletion is not a solution here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dirtlawyer's comments above and WP:CFBSEASON. That said, is there an existing article that these can be merged into? Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pick one: I suggest the oldest article for each team as the merge target. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the material, either in individual articles or merging as appropriate per Dirtlawyer's reasoning. The latter is editorial and doesn't require AfD's imprimatur. Paulmcdonald has raised real doubts about whether the information is, in fact, routine, so a bundled nomination probably wasn't appropriate here. Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Paulmcdonald has only shown that one game has attracted any media notice. The seasons themselves all rely on the same site for game results. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technical keep - too many articles, some of which may be notable, bundled together. I have no objection to another re-listing instead. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you from work on CFB articles, Bearian. Have you read WP:CFBSEASON? This is a perfect bundled set of candidates for a merge. At most, one of these articles is notable enough to sustain a separate stand-alone article, and it's marginally notable at best. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (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.