Deletion of BYU Cougars future football schedules

Comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (|step 3).  I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 9
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDHOWTO)

Comment: per the reasoning I provided in the East Carolina deletion discussion: "I agree that it does not violate ; while the individual games might not be notable enough for standalone articles, the seasons certainly will be, and the games once scheduled are highly likely to actually be played.  The article also does not violate ; the closest thing a football season has to a "track list" is a list of scheduled games, and that is precisely what the article is listing.  Sourcing is for the most part high-quality, being from local newspapers.  The media frequently reports on teams scheduling future out of conference opponents as demonstrated by the sourcing in the article; it is not "trivial" as asserted by the nominator.  I believe the material in the article meets  and therefore should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:HAMMER||WP:GNG)

Comment: First of all,  doesn't say anything about "indiscriminate collections of sports trivia." Please don't make up policy to support your position. Second of all, when exactly does "the time come"? at the end of the previous season? At the start of the new season? Two months before? Three? Who decides? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, BYU's schedule is unusual in that they do not have a preset, conference schedule because they play as an independent, making this information a bit more relevant than it might be for other teams in the NCAA (other than, perhaps, Notre Dame
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I am the nominator of the East Carolina article of the same kind. I did not know about the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles when nominating ECU's. Once I became aware of that fact ''after'' the arguments began for ECU, I decided it would be much better to wait and see what the final conclusion turns out to be before nominating any of the other ones. If the end result is delete, then the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles could irrefutably be |speedy deleted on the basis of precedence. If the result turned out to be no consensus or keep, then I would have left these alone. I think it's counterproductive to have all of these individual AfDs going on at one time when they're all about the ''exact same issue'' and I kind of wish these new AfDs were never created. It's just going to create a scattering of rehashed arguments over the span of four different deletion discussions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:SPEEDY)

Comment: article is well sourced and exceeds  standards.  Also, the list is not |indiscriminate but is specifically about BYU football schedules
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DISCRIMINATE)

Comment: This article is well sourced, and—despite what the nominator suggests—it violates no policies. With dozens of citations to reliable sources, the article easily meets . The nominator's rationale is a pure |I don't like it argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)