"

I don't buy those arguments.

First, there has also been a recent trend of creating a season article for every Division I program for each of the last 3 or so seasons. I see no reason that that trend won't start to backtrack into earlier teams. Pages getting deleted have less to do with the notion of a single-season article being inherently non-notable, than it has to do with those specific articles not being up to standards. Just look at all the single-season Nebraska football articles that are being created and kept. You say, ""There will never be a separate article for any of these pre-2000 Gators football teams."" That's a rather bold proclamation to issue on behalf of all editors, present and future. Never say never.

I don't buy that you need to bypass the redirect to take the reader to the applicable section. That's why the season redirects typically redirect to the correct section in the target article. Even better, in case the sections get renamed, only the redirect will need to have its link tweaked, rather than the set of all articles that bypassed the redirect.

Just because there is only one single season article between 1906 and 1999 right now, it does not preclude the distinct possibility of there being more. Especially when many of those 1990's squads finished in the top 10, and the 1995 team actually played in the national championship game - how is that not notable?

Merging the decade articles is a fine consensus. I'm in no way countering that. However, consensus can change over time, and there is no need to prevent other articles from linking to new Florida season articles should that situation ever arise.

I don't know why you bring in broken links, unless you're suggesting that the decade articles would be deleted, and that somehow the bot could figure out to point the link at the season article at that point. Why not keep it simple, and leave the link to the redirect. That way, there is no need for this magic bot. That's one of the main features of redirects: to serve as a placeholder for a possible future article distinct from the redirect target. You call my arguments specious, yet I'm not the one trying to justify departure from accepted Wikipedia guidelines.

True, the answer is obvious. Have the redirect point at the correct section of the decade article. Simple as that. I'll even help update the redirect targets. FaultRyan "