This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
With the quality of the content and sourcing in the current attempts to split out some content, outside of the fact the article was not split properly, there is no reason for a split. Onel5969TT me 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no exception to edit-warring for this reason; please revert your edits until we come to a consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia usually has articles for Division I, II, III, etc. athletics pages, as they are almost always notable. And I see no reason why this program should not have a page. By the way, a discussion is not necessary, as the split page you pointed me to (while reverting my edit on the Pointers, how funny) says "If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split." BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
And funny how you ignore the fact that the split was reverted, so therefore a discussion is required. Using the very quote you provided. It also says that the article meets the criteria for splitting, and this one meets neither of the two criteria under split. Onel5969TT me 02:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Support split. Given the vast precedent for stand-alone articles for college sports programs, a split out should be the default over one editor's preference for the circumstances on one particular article. Nonetheless, let's have the discussion now. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I also support splitting this content into a new article. Given that three of the four editors who have participated in this discussion favor this approach, the consensus seems pretty clear. ElKevbo (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
