Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Oregon State Beavers football

History of Oregon State Beavers football

History of Oregon State Beavers football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

While few would deny the notability of the topic, the present state of this severely bloated, mostly unreferenced article might warrant a

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  Pac-12 seems to have one that isn't an exact duplicate of the main article - hello Arizona). ansh666 05:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Alright, I won't stand in the way, but good luck cleaning it up. ansh666 17:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. The subject is clearly notable, and the fact that no other Pac-12 team yet has such an article is no reason for deleting (compare History of Alabama Crimson Tide football, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, LSU, Ohio State, Tennessee, Texas, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, etc.). A lot of the lengthy detail about individual games should be moved to season articles, e.g. 1914 Oregon Agricultural Aggies football team. This article should be more of a forest-level overview with individual game details dealt with in the season articles. The solution here is copy-editing not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62. We don't necessarily have to delete the article to fix it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep while sometimes an article could be so poorly written that deletion is better and then start over, that's not the case here The topic is clearly notable, surpassing
  WP:GNG extensively. Even the nominator indirectly admits the topic is notable. AFD should be for deletion, not for editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Agree there is too much tactical detail about individual games, but it just needs cleanup not deletion. Praemonitus (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2017 (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.