This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Connecticut, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject University of ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject University of ConnecticutUniversity of Connecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I will draw more fire for this but that is alright. This was a 2017 tagged article that had no sources. I am struggling to understand the pushed notability of a particular year (there are multiple hundreds of such articles) of a college football season, especially one that shows a record of 2 wins and 9 losses. The records template shows second to last only ahead of the team listed as Navy (0–10) that links to the season and not the team.
Looking at this pragmatically I am trying to wrap my head around: "what raises the bar that this college team year is encyclopedic as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information? #3 of that section explains "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.". I provided a link to the main article but with no actual "summary of statistics" there it is difficult to point to as a "main article". I added a reference as maintenance and changed the "Unsourced" tag to "Onesource".
I still struggle with the idea that these "many individual season listings", currently reflecting just stats of a particular year and possibly misnamed with "football team" over season, is actually notable. I realize this will not be popular among some, as these inundate Wikipedia, so I am looking for the "exception" that they are worthy of inclusion. Otr500 (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
