Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown football, pre–1890

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. Star Mississippi 01:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown football, pre–1890

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)

Subject does not meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What the hell... NSEASONS states that seasons can be grouped if lacking individual notability - I do, as an ATD for the 1881 season article (which you seem to really not like for some reason), this article on the first 16 years of Georgetown football - and within minutes of finishing you AFD it. I can add the next five seasons to this if it helps, but why are you now so much against merger articles when they're created by me, when you've done the exact same before for arguably less notable groupings (DelState)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:UNDUE content or (b) result in near-total erasing the first 16 years of the team's history, which need to be mentioned somewhere at Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Keep, per Cbl62 and Jweiss. This is a valid split, something Let'srun has been supportive of in the past when others have done such actions (even doing it himself). Futhermore, his lack of a reply to my above comment (how many seasons would equal notability) while actively editing elsewhere indicates that this is simply an
      WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination / nomination due to it being my work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I do not think
  WP:ATD for this type of merge. More reasonable would be expanding the scope of this page to 1894, as Category:Georgetown Hoyas football seasons indicates that was the last season prior to a rebranding. Curbon7 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This is a legitimate combined article on the early years of a notable football program. Combining multiple years in this fashion is valid per
  WP:CONTENTDISPUTE that should be discussed first at the article's talk page. However, such a disagreemen is not a proper basis IMO for taking the article to AfD within minutes of creation (and without any discussion or dispute resolution), as was done here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62. Honestly, AFD needs to be snow closed.
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Cbl62. -- ZooBlazer 01:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the best way to present this information - you could split any season out and it would be only marginally notable but that's covered by NSEASON and it's not like it's poorly sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2024 (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.