Talk:1915 Guilford Quakers football team

Untitled

@Fram I'm not really sure how to address your concern on this page -- Wikipedia has a pretty longstanding and widespread commitment to documenting most college football seasons, especially the earliest years of the sport, and I see little reason this page is significantly different from dozens of other similarly short pages which have existed without issue. I've made a few edits, which I hope elucidate its interest to you, but generally I'm just not sure what harm it does to make information that is only currently available via an archive of a dead webpage more readily available on the web.

I know that in the past, smaller football teams have had their pages combined into decade-by-decade results (for example the Richmond Spiders football seasons were once listed in this way, as was William & Mary), but ultimately this just means someone else will split the pages up later on down the road. Cnd474747 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If there are no independent sources for this "season" (hardly worth that name), then it shouldn't have an article. Other ones have been deleted or combined indeed, and the ones I'm aware of have not been recreated afterwards. There are many similar pages, and most of these shouldn't exist as such either. Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A number of additional sources have been added; hopefully this assuages your desire for notability. Cnd474747 (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The Quaker is not an independent source, so no help here. A source which fails to mention the 1915 season also doesn't help. The other sources I can't access, seem like local match reports, routine coverage but at least somewhat better. Fram (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

> "The Quaker is not an independent source, so no help here"

The information sourcing The Quaker is largely not germane to the article -- it's supporting the claim that William E. Moore was the English teacher, and the claim the season was overlooked by contemporary sportswriters, which I will address in the following line. The period newspaper articles are the legs on which this article stands -- the rest are just supporting pieces.

> "A source which fails to mention the 1915 season also doesn't help."

The purpose of the sources which don't mention the season was to emphasize that it is often overlooked, hence, "the season has been largely overlooked by even contemporary sportswriters of the time" as expressed in the body of the article. The purpose of this line is to reinforce the idea that the preservation of this season on Wikipedia is important because of its relative obscurity.

Does this explanation suffice? Cnd474747 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)