Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Southern Miss Golden 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 Delete

2008 Southern Miss Golden Eagles football team

Contested prod. As I said in my prod nom, the team itself is not particularly notable, the article is speculation, no other seasons have pages for themselves (and there is not enough information about them on Southern Miss Golden Eagles to warrant making them), and the page contains nothing indicating notability for the upcoming season meriting an article. I would suggest a merge, but there's not really any new information in this article to merge. Gromlakh (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Similair articles exist for less "notable" teams, the article is in no way speculative, the fact that "no other seasons have pages for themselves" does not seem to merit deletion on its own and the article will be updated with new information for the upcoming season, including the amazing signing class USM put together for 2008. Myspace69 —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because another team's season page hasn't been deleted yet doesn't mean it's notable. It also doesn't mean this is notable, nor does it mean that the 2008 football season is important enough to be split off from the main article (which is already pretty short). Gromlakh (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalball, cannot be notable yet. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How can this or any page of a similair nature be considered "notable", as the actual season is still several months away? Surely "notable" events will occur during the season. So should this page be deleted only to be ressurected again at the conclusion of the season? And what about USM's signing class, is that not "notable?" Myspace69 —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:This is a second vote from this user. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N and can not be justified based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. How could every team for every sport at every school be notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How about this one for you: WP:BIAS? How did you determine that the article "Fails WP:ORG and WP:N?" I don't understand that to be the case. Myspace69 —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since you requested that I respond to you (even though I didn't post the last few delete notes, and I already responded to your first "Keep" vote), I'll give it another shot.
- First, you do not need to write Keep every time you comment. AfD is not a majority vote, and even if it was the closing admin will only count one keep vote per user. Writing keep 3 times does not make it more likely that the article will be kept.
- Second, you're basically making the crystalballing argument for me with your second "Keep" vote. You're assuming that something notable will happen during the season. You might be right, but that's not the point. We don't assume ANYTHING here. Something gets notable first, then it comes into Wikipedia; not the other way around.
- Finally as to the recruiting class, I'll assume for the sake of argument that it's notable. The text you created would have to be massively edited for NPOV and peacocking if it were to be kept, and I'm also not sure that everything you said is backed up by that one reference, but there's at least something reporting on it. That doesn't mean that this one season of football merits its own page apart from the main page on the college/its sports. If you distill the page down and eliminate the extraneous stuff, you've basically got two points that aren't mentioned on the main sports page for the school: 1.) they got a decent recruiting class; and 2.) the same guy will be coaching them. None of that needs a separate page, especially given how small the main page already is. Articles only get split off because either the main page is really long or the material being split is so voluminous and/or notable that going heavily in depth about it on a different page would be giving it undue weight in the context of that article. Neither applies, as the main sports page is rather short and there's no information on this page that couldn't be concisely presented on the main sports page (just like every other season).
- If they end up winning a national title this year or something, that might change and the page might need to be recreated. But we don't keep articles around just because there's a possibility that six/eight/ten months from now something really notable might or might not happen. Gromlakh (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the coaching change they made, firing the long-tenured Jeff Bower and hiring up-and-coming coordinator Larry Fedora not notable? Either Fedora will lead the team to another winning season (USM currently has the 5th longest streak in the nation with 14 consecutive)/Bowl bid (USM has been Bowling 10 of the last 11 years, pretty good for a non-BCS Conf. team) in his first year, or he won't, which would be notable based on those streaks being broken. If you want more sources supporting my 'assertion' that USM's (concensus top-50/best in the CUSA) recruiting class is, in fact, notable, I can provide plenty, but I'm hesitant to put any further work into an article that the WikiPopo are determined to banish. If the subject of the article is not up to your personal standards of notoriety, because it seems to me to meet Wikipedia's, then go ahead and delete it so I put my time into something that does meet your criteria.

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.