Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most weeks ranked number 1 (NCAA football)

< Wikipedia: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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most weeks ranked number 1 (NCAA football)

edit
Most weeks ranked number 1 (NCAA 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)

Non-notable topic (not a recognized measure applied to college football); trivial (of no importance at all); has clear point of view (only covers the AP polls, not any of the other polls); and mere synthesis/original research (no entity publishes number of weeks ranked #1, it's something someone did the math on and put into a google spreadsheet). These problems were first raised in June 2010.GrapedApe (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these issues have been resolved, please refer to summary at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.96.141 (talk) [reply]
In your opinion.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mine too go easy on the newbie. Any "original research" and "notability" issues have been addressed with the latest changes in the article and sources provided. I believe they are adequate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per all reasons listed by GrapedApe above. Mdak06 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this is a great list article. I would like to see it expanded. I would like to see one for basketball too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivia, also is incomplete with seemingly arbitrary cuttoff (11?) and focus on one poll and only one aspect of that poll. Why not then an article on total appearances or total any possible sports statistic? WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. WP:POV and WP:SYNTH seem to apply per GrapedApe... also seems to have WP:NOTE issues...CrazyPaco (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Associated Press college football poll article. I think the statement that it's OR is inaccurate, as the ESPN College football encyclopedia has the weekly progression of the AP poll since 1936. The "not a recognized measure" is not entirely accurate either, as the team who is #1 in any given week is considered by many newspapers to be the best team in the land at a particular point in the season, and the #1 at the end is considered to be the national champion. That being said, I don't consider this notable enough for a stand-alone article. pbp 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To reply:
  1. It is WP:SYNTH (a sub-set of WP:OR policies) because the data is pulled together and synthesized for the purpose of the article, not that the information is unpublished elsewhere. There are no sources that state "Here are the most weeks ranked number 1 for NCAA football," so SYNTH
  2. While being #1 is a recognized measure, and being #1 at the end of the year is a recognized measure, being #1 for the most weeks overall is not.
--GrapedApe (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that the author of this article is the first person to aggregate that data and publish it. pbp 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate on my position -- the fact that this is original research is not the primary issue for me, since that problem could be corrected. The main issue, in my opinion, is that this article is not notable enough by itself to warrant being a separate article. Even if it was expanded to include the same information for the Coaches Poll, the Harris Poll, and whatever other football polls or rankings someone wanted to add, and even if all of the basketball polls were also added, it's still not notable enough to be a separate article. It's nothing but trivia. It's rarely (if ever) mentioned in news reports, as far as I can tell. It's trivia in the same way that "for what weeks were two teams tied for #1 in the AP Poll" is trivia. Could it be added as a subsection of the College Football section of the AP Poll article? Sure, that would make more sense and perhaps be appropriate. But as a separate article, it doesn't pass the notability test. Essentially, this article fails under WP:DISCRIMINATE. That policy states: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. There is no context that can be provided in this case, because there are no articles (as far as I know) about the topic of how many times any particular team(s) have been listed at #1 in the AP Poll means anything. Mdak06 (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds as if you're moving toward merge... pbp 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with a merger. I still think it's essentially meaningless trivia, but I suppose that's not as bad if included as a subsection in a larger article. If it is merged, I'd favor a basic list of all teams who've been ranked #1, ordered by number of appearances -- i.e.
. . .
(etc.)
But if it's merged, it needs to have a real source (and not an 8-year-old OU media guide, a bunch of Wikipedia pages, and a homemade Google document). Mdak06 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent edition of the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia that contains a poll progression is probably the source this article needs pbp 04:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation (and if I'm wrong, someone please correct me) is that this article contains original research because it merges data from multiple sources. For example, the article states that Alabama has been #1 for 63 weeks, but the OU source states that Alabama has been #1 for 31 weeks; that information is then merged with data from the other sources (the more recent AP Polls) to reach a conclusion. That's why it's considered original research (I think). Mdak06 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with no on original research based on that. We could easily gather the information in a Wikipedia table in any order with a column "weeks at #1" and then use the Wikifunction SORT to sort the table. That's not original research, that's compiling the research of others. Original research would be having a wiki article for My College Football Rankings.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hi, I'm the guy that has been updating this article the last couple of years, but not the original author. I did compile the reference pages and the spreadsheet. This is sports, and stats and their analysis is a central part of the fan experience, especially in older sports. They are a topic of discussion, and several people have told me that they reached this article by googling "most weeks at number one college football", which is the empirical evidence I think you're looking for as far as relevancy. And, it was referenced on ESPN radio when it was noted that Alabama has been at number 1 under Saban for as many weeks as they were under all their other coaches combined (just last week - this is an event of significance to that audience (an audience of millions) that might have been missed without the article.) It goes to "11" because some Michigan fans were upset that they were squeezed out of the top 10.
Take a look at the stat pages for Baseball (example - under "See Also" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_1,000_runs_batted_in). Stats in sports from different perspectives are important and relevant, and it seems trivial to single this one out, or that College Football stats are somehow non-notable. The external accesses to the article would indicate otherwise. (Sorry, I don't mean to sound cranky. Just sharing my experience around the article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.184.201 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why this article is worthy of existing as a separate article, and why it doesn't make sense to merge this data into the AP Poll article under the College Football section? There's no text in the article that suggests why the statistic itself is significant, and even if there were, it's questionable whether this particular statistic rises to the level of "separate article worthiness." Contrast this article to the article "College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS." That article goes into significant detail as to why simply being ranked #1 for the last week of a season is considered significant. It would seem to make more sense to have this data (the number of times a team has been #1) listed in the context of the entire AP Poll article (in the same way that the AP Poll article lists the #1 vs. #2 games). Keep in mind that the existing Most weeks ranked number 1 (NCAA football) page can be set up to automatically redirect to the appropriate subsection of the AP Poll article, if the data is merged into that article. Mdak06 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be tough to say for any article I guess. What is the criteria? The fact that this has been a separate article for years, and that it is conceded that it is in fact notable to enough fans to get all the way in here and note it as such would be enough to say that things are quite alright. This baseball stat page - List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs batted in - is the reference I meant to make earlier. Based on the criteria you mention (not a good explanation of why it is actually important, it could be rolled in to a single page with other stats, etc) you'd think it would not exist. Yet it does, along with the dozens of stats linked in the "See also" section, all with their own page, which are a small subset of the stats for that single sport. One might think that 1,000 RBIs and 1,000 runs could be on the same page at least, yet they are not, and for good reason to the audience that cares. So I'm not sure how to answer, it seems like a question of relevance has been turned into a request to meet halfway, which is a different sort of thing. I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I like this stat, and I think the initial reasons in the GrapeApe comment are not accurate. Never done this before but this is a neat list so thought I would chip in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.31.3 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TRIVIA pretty clearly applies here, even if we completely ignore WP:OR, and if we do the latter, we generally need a better reason to invoke WP:IAR rather than to simply include an indiscriminate list of information. The comparison to the list of 1,000 RBI players pretty clearly fails - you can find easily reliably sourced that career RBIs for a hitter in baseball are something considered notable in the baseball analysis field. You can find no such thing for this list, created by original research. Even ignoring it, it still leaves the keep argument as primarily based on it being interesting and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which isn't close to enough. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:TRIVIA pretty clearly applies here": Bad reference, but to the comment's intent - WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE needs more explanation and refutation of why to make an exception in this case for the external references in popular press and discussions about this statistic
"if we completely ignore WP:OR": externally compiled list is clearly referenced in article
"The comparison to the list of 1,000 RBI players pretty clearly fails": WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an empty argument. "Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?"
"it still leaves the keep argument as primarily based on it being interesting and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which isn't close to enough." - intentionally misleading argument - keep argument applies to notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.97.11 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article updater here again. I just added a link to an external source for this, here. http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=num1app&from=1936&to=2013#.UlQQwiTkujs . I'm not a WP expert on all the rules, and I'm really starting to think that a bias against that is the driving factor in this discussion. I'm a fan of both College Football and Wikipedia, and yet here's a bunch of "experts" saying WP:OR when it is not (I imagine even with this latest reference, the arrogance will still have people saying it is, or refusing to delete their previous, wrong comments.) The stat is referenced externally, yet somehow WP:FAILN is still harped on as fact. Seems more like WP:BELONG to me. How much evidence is needed for these trolls? When pride gets in the way I don't think any amount will suffice. I mean the initial post on this that looked comprehensive on the surface, has been negated point for point. It meets the test of notability (through user comments and a freaking google search of press articles), triviality (Bingo! Externally compiled list of the same data). No WP-expert questions any of this, taking statements such as "same thing in 2010" as a fact. Every "Delete" here, that is still on this page after acknowledging the sources and the adequate notability, really boils down to WP:IDL . I wish the air of sumgness would lead to taking the responsibility to exercise the faux-professionalism to edit away those premature accusations. Guess we'll see how that plays out.

Delete or Merge I have no strong preference for either deletion of this article or merging this article's contents into the AP Poll article. However, I am against keeping it as a separate article. This article as it exists, in my opinion, violates these Wikipedia policies:

  • WP:Notability This article, in my opinion, has failed to prove that it meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Admittedly, the article has been updated recently, and now states: During debates about which teams are consistently the best over long periods of time, this statistic is sometimes brought up to perhaps compare with the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, or the List of NCAA football teams by wins or many more such statistic measures to support the debaters point of view. However, the article offers no sources to back up this claim. Claims of notability should be verified by independent sources. The simple fact that a source exists online that lists information does not, by itself, make it notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. As a silly example, I could show a page that lists the average number of passes defended per game vs. FBS teams with a non-winnnig record in 2011. For some statistics (for example, the previously mentioned 1000 RBI club), it is notable because it is often mentioned in the media when an instance of that statistic occurs (for example, recent 1000-RBI milestones are mentioned here, here, and here). While there may be instances available that show that this is, in fact, an often-mentioned statistic when discussing great teams, I have not seen it. If it's out there, please cite the sources and prove me wrong.
Comment: On WP:Notability: here, here, here, here, here, here... seriously, please don't sound so self-righteous, I'm getting convinced you are just trolling this page.
Of the referneces you have given, two are reliable sources but certainly biased (an OU student newspaper and the OU Athletics website - biased since OU is #1 on the list, as opposed to, for example, Sports Illustrated or ESPN), one is simply the list itself (which does as much to promote notability as my statistic I posted a link to above), and the remaining ones are "posts by fans" (the SEC blog, the SEC discussion board, and the Yahoo Contributor post).
Comment:: the guidelines for WP:NOTE are: "Significant coverage" (meets the strict definition), "Reliable" (external editorial source), "Sources" (" There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."), "Independent of the subject" (sources were not produced by subject (unlike one of your sources MLB :), and "Presumed" (again, significant coverage in reliable sources). I don't see which of these is violated at this point. WP:IDL is not a qualifier of notability.
While I don't completely dismiss posts by fans, I don't see that they by themselves establish notability. Any fan can find a place online to express an opinion, be it by their own blog (SEC Sports Fan), or by participating in a discussion forum (SEC Rant), or by writing an article and posting it (the Yahoo Contributor). FWIW, the ESPN radio mention that you stated in a previous discussion is a much better example of an unbaised, reliable source.
ESPN, LA Times, Sports Illustrated. " if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between and after the *, as in " Delete Keep"."
I am going to request that you be civilized in these discussions. I am not trying to sound self-righteous. I asked you to prove me wrong because if you can prove me wrong, that might change my position. Don't get bent out of shape about it. You accuse me of trolling. Just because someone disagrees with your position does not make them a troll. It is your job to assume good faith (see WP:AGF) and you are violating this right now by being accusatory towards others. I am not trolling and your personal attack is unwarranted and offensive. Despite the fact that I and others have disagreed with your position, we have not been calling you names. We deserve respect in the same way that you deserve respect.
This article is being questioned because some of us believe that it does not meet the criteria to be a separate article on Wikipedia. If you disagree, that's fine. If you have arguments that support your position, that's fine. If you call others trolls and assume bad faith, that is completely unacceptable. Mdak06 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment::from the guidelines for discussion:
*WP:DISCUSSAFD: avoid [Proof by assertion], which is what these arguments are based on, starting with WP:OR and including the NPOV discussion.
*"Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator. "
*" if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between and after the *, as in " Delete Keep"." Could you please do so? Understanding proper Wikietiquette but intentionally leaving a pattern of groundless opinion (as referred to in WP:AFDFORMAT) is referred to indelicately as trolling.
  • WP:NPOV As GrapedApe mentioned in the earlier discussion, this article focuses exclusively on the AP Poll and does not take into consideration that there are methods rankings of teams other than simply the AP Poll. The Coaches Poll, the Sagarin Rankings, and the Billingsley Report are all examples of other rankings of college football teams that are very well-known. It therefore does not have a neutral point of view on the subject of college football team rankings.
Comment: It does have to do with one poll, the oldest and most widely referenced. The POV is neutral, others are not included simply because they range from largely duplicative (Coach's), to obscure (most others). Note that in the notability references above, all the references to this statistic are to this poll.
I disagree with your assertion on NPOV. While it is correct that the AP Poll is the oldest measure of college football rankings, and presumably correct (although unproven) that it is the most referenced, it is still simply one method of several that is used to rank college football teams. By not acknowledging the Coaches Poll, which has been around since 1950, and not acknowledging other methods that are used to rank college teams (e.g. computer rankings), you are presenting a bias towards the AP Poll and against other polls and other methods of ranking teams, suggesting that this method is the only method worthy of use for comparison. That is not a neutral point of view. Mdak06 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up to my comment about NPOV, this shows why merging this article into the AP Poll article is more appropriate than a stand-alone article. The AP Poll article deals specifically with the AP Poll and only that poll, and therefore the list of "teams most often #1 in the AP Poll" is appropriate in that article without the need for lists of "teams most often #1 in other polls or ranking systems." Mdak06 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the main contributor to this article. I include the AP poll because it is easy and does not require much time, but I do not filter out others who try to add other polls, and wouldn't. I'd welcome it. From the first line of WP:AFD: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I added emphasis to highlight this point. An argument could be made for WP:NEGLECT, but that is not a cause for deletion.
Given that I do not think this particular statistic is notable on its own, it does not make sense for me to add more text to a page that I do not think should exist. I see the statistic as relatively trivial, and while it may be a reasonably sensible addition to the AP Poll page, I do not think it makes sense to exist by itself.
If I was going to "fix" this problem, I would not add the list of #1 teams from other polls and/or ranking systems, as I don't find them particularly notable either. I would simply merge the data from the existing page into the AP Poll article as a subsection, and make the current page redirect to that subsection. Are you suggesting I do that? Mdak06 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for WP:AFD suggest you should, not me (please refer to that link, first bullet). I do suggest that if POV is not your issue with the article, then please delete this section of your comments, and address the notability (I provided a summary of how it is determined, plus references in more mainstream publications as you asked for.) It would also simplify this discussion if you also did so for you previous comments, back to the first, which you've clearly shifted position on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SELFPUBLISH At this time, the links to other Wikipedia pages (the AP Poll rankings each year from 2006 - 2013) and the homemade Google document are still listed as references. Both other Wikipedia pages and self-published documents are not supposed to be used as sources, per the links cited above, that are a part of the WP:Verifiability policy.
Comment: This is not an argument for deletion or merging, which is what this page is about. I'll remove the internal references, but if you are familiar with this guideline, please realize you can edit them out on your own.
I have removed the OU reference (at it is no longer used, since the more up-to-date reference covers it) and removed the Google document (which was in violation of WP:SELFPUBLISH). Mdak06 (talk)

For what it's worth, the original research problem appears to have been corrected with the new link that was recently added. But I have yet to be convinced that this article is worthy of being a separate article. It still appears that if anything, it belongs as a subsection of the College Football section of the AP Poll article in the same way that the AP #1 vs. AP #2 games are listed as a subsection in that article. It could easily state that "There have been 44 teams that have held a #1 ranking in the AP Poll" and follow it with the entire list of teams. It would only need the single source, and the existing page could be set to be a redirection page that goes directly to that subsection. Mdak06 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this argument falls under WP:PRETTY or WP:NEGLECT. Guidelines state that in such an instance one should focus on the potential for expansion, keeping in mind there is no time limit for such improvements. Both are faulty arguments for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Summary of issues

edit

To the moderator, I'm an article contributor and have learned a lot through this process, much of which has made this article better. The above discussion is messy with different people changing opinions, so here's a summary:

The argument for deletion revolves around three issues: WP:OR, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:NPOV.

WP:OR: An external, comprehensive source was added, and the consensus is that this is no longer an issue in any way.
WP:NOTABILITY: Notability has these guidelines:
  • Significant Coverage: this stat has been mentioned in ESPN, Sports Illustrated, LA Times, and numerous other sources both mainstream and fan blogs, more of which are referenced in the discussion.
  • Reliable: the original research question has been resolved.
  • Sources: Numerous secondary sources are cited (such as those in the coverage bullet).
  • Independent of the subject: all sources quoted have no relation to the poll publishers
  • Presumed: the coverage in mainstream and fan press of this statistic is brought up often, and it's never a surprise when it is.
So, the topic meets all of these criteria.
WP:NPOV: some contributors suggested that coverage of the AP poll alone was too narrow, but made the mistake to think it was forced. Within the guidelines of NPOV, no one is trying to filter out other polls, and they would be welcome. The AP poll happens to be the most widely used, especially for this statistic (as can be seen in the secondary sources.) Guidelines say that POV alone should not be criteria for deletion regardless (if a spectator who refused to contribute was convinced of it).
Comment further, that WP:NPOV argument is not a deletion argument. To argue that an article be deleted because it covers one poll and not two is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Perhaps there should be a second article for another poll, or perhaps that existing article should be expanded to cover all polls, or maybe just polls considered "the most important" to the sport. In any event, such discussion should be reserved for the articles talk page on how the final article should be developed or perhaps split off. It does not belong in AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps.

Those sources are scant and extremely brief. Significant coverage and short mentions in passing are two very different things. It may be enough to get it merged into the AP article, but a scattering of brief mentions over a decade (one of your key sources is simply one sentence in a list of factoids from 2003) isn't enough to establish notability. Take a look at 27 Club and the sourcing for that - that's what a notable list looks like. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "scant" do you mean "the lead line in the SI article" ?? All three articles do mention it, and the are arguably global publications. One was from 2003, one from 2009, and one from 2012. There is evidently "sticking power" here. If it truly is just a "scant" use in articles but not clearly defined, then I would argue that is actually an additional reason to keep this article because the term has clearly been used over time and we should provide the information to back researchers on the use of the term. This is the kind of stuff that should be in an encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even an article. It's simply a single line in a small list of factoids. That's not what significant coverage means. That single sentence gets as much room in that "article" as the list of people who offered Alonzo Mourning a kidney. Should that have its own page, too? This is mostly a bunch of WP:LIKE - the coverage of this issue is extraordinarily brief, with almost outside of a "Did You Know" type blurb. Significant coverage means more than simply mentioning it exists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists real quick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not even a list of things, people, places, words, or anything like that. It's a table of stats. A table of stats that has a line or two that has been briefly mentioned in passing a handful of times, ever. There's no actual notability here - it's not even a stat that the NCAA keeps track of or references. It's a non-notable table of information, not something for a standalone wikipedia entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it is a list of statistics. The remaining notability issues have all been addressed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is tracked by the NCAA, and referenced by them. Source added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a list, not an article, and it meets reasonable standards: a topic that, while a bit almanacky is something that a typical WP user would expect and appreciate; sourced (imperfectly) and a matter of concern and coverage in independent sources. There's a lot of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT involved in making a call like this. The College football world, unlike pro football, largely revolves around weekly polls and this strikes me as a reasonable "Wikipedia list"... Carrite (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to nominator I don't see your final objection as a reason for deletion. We could overcome "only covers the AP polls, not any of the other polls" by accounting for all national polls: either giving equal weight to all of them (e.g. if there are two polls in a given year, give 1 week to each team that's on top of 1 poll for 1 week, so if you're on top of both throughout the 12-week season, you get credited with 24 weeks) or only counting the weeks in which all the polls have the same team on top. No opinion on your other points, so I'm not going to say "keep" or "delete". Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_weeks_ranked_number_1_(NCAA_football)&oldid=1068982667"