Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Sacred Heart Pioneers football team

:{{la|2009 Sacred Heart Pioneers football team}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Sacred_Heart_Pioneers_football_team Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|2009 Sacred Heart Pioneers football team}})

This article does not meet WP:GNG as I can find no reliable secondary sources that have coverage of this specific year's team. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep This page is no different than thousands of other college football team pages, such as this one or the program's previous season, which are similar in their coverage and notability. The problem with the types of team pages that I create, is that they are retroactive to years in the past, making it hard to add in relevant storylines and coverage. That is why, as you will commonly see in most team pages a couple of years beyond 2019, most pages do not expand beyond a brief introduction, infobox, and their results. This page should be kept because it is just another entry in the program's history. Patriotsontop (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep with mergeKeep this article by merging with Sacred Heart Pioneers football.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 06:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Patriotsontop. A merge would be inappropriate; single seasons are split out to avoid crowding the main article. Mackensen (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep reasoning outlined at WP:CFBSEASON comes to mind in addition to reasons above. Merging to the school is clumsy and awkward as seasons pile up, so it makes sense to break each season out. As an alternative, enthusiastic editors sometimes make a season article for the conference but even that gets to be clumsy and awkward. Keeping the data separately makes much more sense and aids in navigation. Additional detail could be added, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strong keep – per Patriotsontop, and because Sacred Heart is a notable football team per WP:CFBTEAMS. There is no reason to single out this team and this year; there are several teams that Sacred Heart played in 2009 that do have separate articles (2009 Holy Cross; 2009 Bryant); in fact, there are 45 articles detailing 2009 FCS team seasons. Additionally, the article is notable per WP:CFBSEASON, and I found these: (1) [http://northeastconference.org/schedule.aspx?path=&schedule=6038 2009 Sacred Heart Football at the NEC's official website] (2) [https://www.ctpost.com/football/article/Sacred-Heart-picked-to-finish-8th-in-NEC-602930.php 2010 article from the Connecticut Post titled "Sacred Heart picked to finish 8th in NEC" that details their 2009 season]. I think the better approach to this is to encourage the creation, not the deletion of FBS/FCS season articles. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

::{{ReplyTo|PCN02WPS}} So, WP:CFBTEAMS states:

{{Quote

|Single seasons (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team) can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine/s coverage (see WP:ROUTINE). In general, seasons that culminate in a bowl game will likely be notable. However, not all seasons by teams that participate in college football are inherently notable.

}}

::As far as this team's notability for this season, it does not meet WP:CFBTEAMS because all of the coverage was WP:ROUTINE, including the article {{Ping|Markvs88}} added. I think WP:CFBTEAMS is being taken out of context to create multiple articles that aren't notable. Do we really need all these articles for these seasons? If a team has a notable season then, yes it may deserve an article but not for every season. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

:::Well, first off we don't WP:NEED anything. We could shut down Wikipedia and leave blankness on cyberspace. We choose to create an encyclopedia with content. "Need" is too arbitrary of a term, as that means different things to different people. Second, it looks like there is a good amount of coverage that is far beyond the sports scores and statistics--feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE by any stretch. This simple [http://www.espn.com/college-football/recap?gameId=292690399 game recap] blasts that out of the water, and that's just one of the many games that season. As I stated below, it needs to be edited and researched, but there is no deadline. The threshold of notability is surpassed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - How hard did you search? I just added the ESPN reference for SHU vs Albany, and they have the same for every game. Markvs88 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think what we're looking at here is a need for more research and content--which is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• No, and here is why The editor proposing the deletion stated "as I can find no reliable secondary sources that have coverage of this specific year's team.". I legitimately asked how hard they'd looked since I found the ESPN link in approximately 12 seconds. Look, I'm all for deleting long-standing uncited articles and/or points but in this case the article was LESS ONE DAY OLD. There was no attempt by the deletion proponent at CN tagging, no discussion, just an immediate delete tag with obviously no (or at best very lazy) searching. So from my perspective we are most certainly looking at a deletion issue. Markvs88 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.