Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Bulldogs football (all games)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Deryck C. 01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Bulldogs football (all games)[edit]

Georgia Bulldogs football (all games) (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)

This article is redundant given set of articles covering the individual Georgia Bulldogs football seasons; see Category:Georgia Bulldogs football seasons. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list, when complete, will be way too long to be of value as a list. Plus, there are many places on the web where such a list already exists and a simple link in "External links" section will suffice. There's very little commentary and it does not appear to be useful as a navigational aid. I can find no reason to keep this list. (Kudos to who has done the work so far--that's some editing).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Completely redundant content with the Georgia Bulldogs individual season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and others, especially the redundancy. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom and other editors, who have covered the reasons for deletion quite thoroughly. Onel5969 TT me 13:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2016 (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.