Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/1899 VMI Keydets football team - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion
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. (Procedural; nominator retracted nomination) (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

1899 VMI Keydets football team

1899 VMI Keydets football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A century-old college spoers season with but a single game. Only the most passing of mentions in the given references. I don't believe that independent coverage of this exists. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Precedent should rule here. College football seasonal wrap-ups are commonly accepted. The fact that this "season" was just 1 game 110 years ago changes nothing in that regard. There are sources out there (local paper home team, local paper visitors, campus press), just nothing on the internet. Let's not start parsing things too closely here. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, precedent should rule here. The precedent in question being the WP:GNG, which says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Campus presses do not count as independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course they do! A bulletin issued by the football team itself would not count; coverage in a school paper is independent of the subject (the team) and substantial. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:3PARTY says Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject. Since both the team and the paper share an affiliation with the school, they are affiliated. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added an additional source, and independent one. I kept the original because it does have other useful information. With the new source, we picked up the date of the game too!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Picked up another source from a Baltimore paper covering the game. Surely these two decidedly independent sources show that coverage is verifiable. Note that this is 1899, so online sources will indeed be hard to find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep certainly "verifiable" through independent third party sources (which should be added) and it is technically an "undefeated season" so I have no issue with it. Would like to see more details added about the game itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails accepted notability guidelines by a wide margin. One game report is not the same as the coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The other sources are not independent. Fram (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment/Question College Football Data Warehouse and Baltimore American newspaper are both widely considered to be independent sources, which is two independent sources and not one. are you challenging either of those sources as being independent?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
      • CFDW doesn't count towards notability at all, it gives routine coverage for all teams, matches, years and so on, no significant indepth coverage. The only source that counts as a reliable, independent source is the Baltimore Sun, but that is a pure WP:NOTNEWS violation. The match hasn't received any significant attention from RS after the news report, so fails WP:N completely. Fram (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Many would argue that assessment of CFDW. Since the last posting, I've found articles Baltimore Sun and Washington Evening Times articles have been added. Not bad for something in 1899. There's also a bunch more turning up in searches, many which seem to be in pay-only areas of the web. The it was obviously widely covered at the time. The "not-news" article seems bogus to me, at least as applied here: if there were not any "news" articles, opposition would say "there wasn't even anything in the news" (which in this case there obviously was). "News" by definition is the plural of "new" so of it is no longer "new" (i.e. much later) then it would not be listed in the "news". It would take 22 years for college football to be broadcast on radio and 40 years for college football to make its way to television. What other media would you like to have?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
          • The question is not about other media, but about persistent coverage, not a single burst of news reports. I have no problem writing articles about notable subjects of centuries ago, because they continue to be covered, discussed, analyzed in reliable sources (e.g. books) over the years and centuries. Here, all you have after the initial news coverage, is a statistics database. Fram (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Carrite, precident for yearly articles on sports teams is there and should take precidence here. Better referencing is needed here but we need to recognize that due to the time this article is covering, reliable sources are going to be more difficult to locate. RadioFan (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Relisting should be reserved for times when consensus is not clear or when additional discussion would be beneficial. It's pretty clear here in my view. Care to give a reason why?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • ¨Presumably because in the opinion of the relister, consensus is not yet clear, discussion is ongoing, and more input would be beneficial to get a clear view of the consensus? Fram (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm also wondering why this was relisted. Participation in the discussion seems sufficient. All those participating are pointing to policy and guidelines in their reasoning and the !votes are pretty clear. I've left a note on the admin's page asking that they return here to provide an explanation.--RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments (I'm not American, so maybe these are stupid questions) (a) if they only played one game in the season, surely that's unusual and the reason would be discussed in the coverage? (b) I'm not sure I understand the chroniclingamerica content, is it talking about the right season? Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed, both source 4 and 6 (Chronicling Amrica) are about the 1900 season, not the 1899 season. Fram (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Question: Do you want only news articles from the 1899 season (which you said above would violate WP:NOTNEWS) or do you want to have articles about the impact of that season beyond 1899 (which you seem to say here is not what you want)? In short, which is it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, how I love false dilemma's and strawmen arguments! Could you perhaps indicate what, in those two 1900 articles, is about the 1899 season? Because as far as I see, these two sources have nothing at all to do with the 1899 season and should be removed from the article. Fram (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
          • They both show the significance of the player Montgomery in the next season. Because one of the articles was written before play began the 1900 season, it is reasonable to assume that these duties are based at least in part on his success in the 1899 season. I'd agree that more detail should be provided and hopefully it will be forthcoming in future edits. Fortunately, there is no deadline at Misplaced Pages.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Now that I've answered your question would you mind answering mine?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Um, no, you haven't answered my question at all. You are engaging in WP:OR here. Montgomery played in 1899, Montgomery was significant in 1900, so this is based on his success in the 1899 season (i.e. the match from the start of the year)? I'll remove the two sources for 1900 from the article, since you are obviously not planning to do so, even though neither of them contain any fact about the 1899 season. Fram (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Maybe I didn't answer your question to your satisfaction, but I did answer it. You haven't even attempted to answer mine, and I asked first. I can only assume by your actions that you agree your "notnews" argument above does not apply because of your actions. By the way, I don't see it as original research because the article itself did not state that the player's success in 1900 was based on the 1899 season, just that the data was in place for future editors and researchers to collaborate. I can find no essay, policy, or guideline to support this, but I'm willing to bet that "OH CRAP THERE'S A SOURCE IN THE ARTICLE THAT REFUTES MY ARGUMENT IN AFD, I'M GOING TO DELETE IT FROM THE ARTICLE" is not a valid reason to delete an article. I will happily revert your deletion and if you want we can go the the three revert rule to gain consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
                • Indeed, your shouted non-argument is not a good reason to delete an article. Luckily, the source I removed did not refute any of my arguments in this discussion at all. As for the reason that I have not answered your question, I have explained this to you. Your question posed a false dilemma, misrepresenting both my position and the actual sources presented in the AfD and the article. "do you want to have articles about the impact of that season beyond 1899?" Of course I do, I have requested these, and they are a basic requirement for any article challenged at AfD. No one, including you, has presented any such articles though. A school yearbook that indicates that the captain of the 1899 football team is also the captain of the 1900 football team is not an article about the impact of the 1899 season, nor is it significant coverage, nor is it in any way independent. The other article, indicating that said captain is in 1900 also co-coaching the team, is at least independent, but has no information about the 1899 season at all, just one line of information about one player from the 1899 team. So, yes, including this as evidence that the 1899 season was notable is OR, and I am still waiting for any article beyond the NOTNEWS ones. Are these allowed in the article? Of course, they have relevant, reliable info. Are they sufficient to keep an article on their own? No, per NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
                  • I think you need to review your own arguments before going further in this discussion. For example, when you state "no one has presented references" what you are really saying is "no one has presented references to your satisfaction" (which is certainly a welcome opinion). You seem to be standing alone in that assessment. But hey, way to be WP:BOLD!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
                    • Paulmcdonald, please don't "quote" statements from me which I have not said. I have nowhere said "no one has presented references", so please retract that statement. If you can't discuss this fairly, then just shut up, but don't invent statements I have never used as if they are my position. It is beneath you. Fram (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
                      • Hallelujah! I was incorrect in stating Fram's position that references are not provided. Fram now evidently agrees that there are plenty of references and will shortly be changing AfD position to keep. The next passing Admin can close this discussion as a "KEEP" and we can all move on to something else. Sounds great to me!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
                        • Paulmcdonald, I have no idea why you are continuously trying to twist things, from claiming that 3 vs. 2 is a clear consensus over presenting false dilemma's to finally fabricating quotes, and when I oppose such a practice to claim that that opposition says anything at all about my opinion of the actual case at hand, but it is a very low tactic. Probably born out of despair, since you are clearly unable to find any source that discusses this "season" after the newsreports of the only match were done, but desperation is no excuse for repeated disruption of what should be an adult, rational discussion. Fram (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's handle this I agree that (and this is a quote of yours because I cut and pasted) "desperation is no excuse for repeated disruption of what should be an adult, rational discussion." So please be rational and stop being disruptive because you really look desperate to "prove your point". My point was proven several days ago. So let's take a closer look at this:

  1. There are 3 keeps and 1 delete, not 2.
  2. You wanted more references from newspapers. When they were found you argue they don't count because they're from newspapers.
  3. When I ask for what you are looking for specifically, you moan and groan about dilemmas and straw men.
  4. On June 29, you claim that there was only one newspaper article in the source, but there were at least two as of June 27. confused to this, see note below
  5. You argue against the College Football Data Warehouse as not counting as notable, yet it has long been considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages by many other editors--and you fail to say "why" it it isn't reliable, just claiming that it is (see Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire).
  6. When another editor posts support of a school newspaper as a source, your response was not civil at all.

I'm confident with the discussion and am ready for this AFD to close, anyone else?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why you don't count the nomination in the deletes? So, yes, there are 3 keeps and 2 deletes, not 1.
I have never discounted any sources "because they're from newspapers".
You did not ask what I was looking for specifically, you started with a loaded question full of assumptions and presenting a false dilemma. What I want is soures that meet WP:N: reliable, independent sources (so not the school newspaper) that address the season significantly (so not a statistics database, and not sources about the 1900 season that don't even mention the 1899 season or the single game). Furthermore, per WP:NOTNEWS, these sources hace to be from beyond the initial news coverage. All the other sources are acceptable (well, the 1900 ones are very tangential), but don't count towards notability, and won't change my policy based "delete" into a keep.
At the end of June 27, there was only one newspaper source, the Baltimore American. This was still the same at the time of my comment of the 29th. The CFDW, the annually VMI bomb, and the 2010 VMI Football Record book, are not newspapers by any stretch of the word.
I have not stated that the CFDW is not a "reliable" source, I have said that it doesn't count towards notability as it is a statistics database, not significant, indepth coverage. It isn't selective but indiscriminate. Please try to distinguish between "independent", "reliable" and "indepth" or "significant". Please don't throw around insulting shortcuts when you are so obviously wrong either.
And finally, I don't take any civility lessons from you, you have presented a statement you made up as if it was a direct quote from me, and refuse to correct this or even acknowledge this. This is despicable behaviour. My comment, on the other hand, started with "you should know better", which is not the most friendly way of stating things, but hardly worthy of the description "not civil at all". The only person I behaved uncivil towards is you, and you don't deserve any better, since you are unwilling or uncapable of discussing things here in a rational, adult, fair and reasonable manner. If you want civility, act like a civil person instead of displaying all the underhanded tactics you have shown here. Fram (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Response I'll only respond to what matters to this discussion, which means a lot of it will fall out. 1) Yes, the nominator does not count as a "delete" because the nominator has not taken a position of "delete" -- and yes, someone can nominate an article for deletion discussion and remain neutral. 2) Something is amiss on when the second newspaper was added, because my notes above are showing June 27 but the log is different. It's possible something didn't get saved, but I'll take the heat for that one and strike it. 3) The sources (including CFDW) look good to me, they look even better now, and several others agree with this position. In conclusion, I'm still confident with the discussion and am ready for closure--especially with the new information found!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Paulmcdonald, the position of the nominator in an "articles for deletion" discussion is always "delete" unless explicitly stated otherwise (like a procedural nomination). And your repeated miscalculation of the consensus, asking for closure, opposing the relisting... isn't helping. A closure will happen when an independent editor (admin or not) will feel that consensus has been reached, not when someone involved thinks it should. Relisting the debate and continuing it has led to the addition of a lot of material by Cbl62, which is a much more effective way of settling these things and getting an article kept than making false claims and incorrect statements about those wanting to delete the article and their opinions and position over and over again. The article will be kept, but not thanks to you. Fram (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Let me get this straight: You now have come around to agree to keep the article, the nominator has agreed to keep the article, other editors have joined in agreeing to keep the article, and additional collaboration has come into the article just as I predicted it would thus proving me right all along--and you're still taking the time to argue with me?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, it is always useful to correct other people's misconceptions, like your idea that the position of the nominator of an article for deletion is not by default "delete". 06:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
            • HEY LOOK I found it! "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." buried in WP:AFD! You're right and I'm wrong! I looked up your argument for you. Now can you please stop arguing with me?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You "looked up your argument for you", "buried in AfD"? You mean, the argument right between the error it corrected and your previous post, which was a direct and to the point reply to you? If you don't get the answer to your loaded questions, you are complaining that I don't reply. If you make a numbered list of my supposed errors (none of them so far have been found to be indeed in error, while some clearly were incorrect on your part), and I do reply and follow-up, you are complaining that I do reply. Hint: if you want people to stop replying to you, don't reply to them, it may be more effective than sniping, shouting, and badly needing correction. Fram (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
                • Confused so if I make a mistake or an error or am otherwise incorrect, you don't want me to reply to retract it anymore, or you do want me to reply with a retraction?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - These kind of challenges really waste a lot of time. We're going to have 5,000 words debating the notability of a one game season. There's a clear precedent for keeping material of this category. And yes, a school newspaper remains an independent source — just as an NBC News report on General Electric is a reliable third-party source while a news release sent out by General Electric itself is not. Even though they are part of the same corporation. WP:SHAZAM. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Carrite, you should know better than to claim that a schoolpaper news articles about a team from that school is an independent source (never mind the reliability of it). Feel free to take it up at the RS noticeboard if you don't believe me. Fram (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Let's calm down some here. Maybe someone "should" know better but perhaps they don't, and if they don't that's no reason to become so accusatory. Further, there are reasonable arguments to support that independence--the athletic department and even the school administration normally have no control over what is printed in a school paper, and those papers are normally held to the same reliability standards as any other newspaper. While the WP:RS discussions may have come to the conclusion to normally dismiss school papers on Misplaced Pages (which incidentally I couldn't find any evidence that they have), that's certainly no reason to think that everyone on Misplaced Pages has read it or even agrees with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • More Games? can't make it out for sure, but there looks like there might be more games on the record... see this source.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • While it might be interesting to some to debate whether certain players or the single game of the season is indeed notable, could we come back to discuss whether the topic 1899 VMI Keydets football team is or is not notable? It seems to me that what notability there is rests with the game and not the season, particularly since we've yet to find a source that speaks to exactly why the season had a single game. Maybe rename the article after the game, rather than the season; and redirect from the season to the game? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason why there was only one game has now been provided -- a deadly typhoid fever outbreak hit the school days after the first football game and resulted in closure of the school for six or seven weeks. 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong, Clear and Easy Keep. The article is supported by several reliable sources, including coverage in three daily newspapers. In addition, there is an established precedent for allowing season articles about significant college football teams. VMI was one of the significant teams in the early days of college football. And frankly, given the lack of easy access to source material from 1899, this is a pretty decent article, even including a temp photograph. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
To me, there's only one daily with significant coverage plus one with a mention a season later and one with statistics. Plus of course the non-independent materials which fill in many of the details but don't count for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Further research reveals that the reason VMI played only one game in 1899 was that a deadly outbreak of typhoid fever hit the campus, resulting in the school being closed several days after the first game. All students were sent home, and the institute did not re-open until after the football season was over. Cbl62 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The team's notability is also enhanced by the fact that George C. Marshall, who went on to be Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense, played on the team. Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The article was a keep for me before the additional references were added and it is still a keep. RadioFan (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Article seems well referenced at this point, and it is very common practice on Misplaced Pages to have articles about even one game seasons by "19xx University of XYZ football team". First Light (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the precedent of having articles about college football seasons. The article appears to be sufficiently sourced, in my opinion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep (changed from delete) due to the work of Cbl62 (though I don't agree with his keep statement; there is only one newspaper article about the 1899 team, not three), with the Marshall connection and source giving sufficient (though not by much) notability. I don't agree with the "precedent" keeps, those are OTHERCRAPEXISTS keeps, but that discussion is not really relevant. Fram (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)\
Thanks for keeping an open mind. Too often people get entrenched in "winning" at AfD, and it's nice to see someone change their mind when circumstances warrant -- even if we don't agree on every aspect of the rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
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.