Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:LISTN, broadcast teams are not notable enough to stand apart from a list of broadcasters (which has an article already: List of ESPN College Football personalities). Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The List of ESPN College Football personalities is a different list that does not contain the Basketball broadcast teams. Teams on ESPN meet the General notability guideline.--23mason (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Its a valid list. You can also merge the other list to this one. The way this one is arranged is far more useful for sorting information. Dream Focus 20:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft and the entire topic (broadcaster teams through history) isn't discussed significantly be reliable sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a database. Due to its size, this grouping of articles is better handled as a category.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid and useful list which does contain some independent references although the variety of reference sources could be expanded. Also the list is starting to become rather long so a good improvement would be to find a way to shorten the article whilst retaining the information provided. Rillington (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and form into a category, as I believe would work better than such a lengthy list. – DarkGlow (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How so? Wouldn't doing that remove all of the information contained in the article? Rillington (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to admit that the comment "form into a category" sounded a lot smarter to me when I wrote it than now when I read it, but my position on the article hasn't changed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 2 January 2020 (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.