Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Mississippi State Lady Bulldogs basketball team

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 keep. If only editors could spend as much time on other subjects as they do on every college's not-yet-played sport seasons. Clear consensus is to keep, since, well, every season in every sport is notable, it seems. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Mississippi State Lady Bulldogs basketball team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kevin12 x d 02:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? There are dozens and dozens of 2015-16 college basketball team articles already up. Keep. Jhn31 (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team as a reference. This was several months ago. ALL 2015–16 articles are acceptable. Jhn31 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though I don't believe that the mere existence of other 2015-16 articles is enough to justify keeping this, I can't say that this article alone should be deleted. I also don't agree with Jhn31's reasoning that the Illinois discussion applies here as that was for a men's team. There seems to be a consensus that all men's seasons now meet notability thresholds given the high level of national coverage that even small conferences now receive in this day and age. For better or worse, women's basketball does not receive this same level of coverage and notability beyond a very few programs (i.e. UConn) is not guaranteed from season to season. Bad teams, even in big conferences rarely receive significant, independent, non-routine coverage outside of a local level and may not need a season article. That being said, given that every single SEC team has an article from the 2014-15 season and none are being challenged on notability merits, I have no reason to challenge a 2016 SEC season article on such merits. Where the Illinois discussion does apply is that is is clearly no longer too soon for such an article. If this were to be a proxy discussion on notability thresholds for women's team season articles in general, I might vote differently, but clearly the lack of discussion means that this isn't the case, so keep. SCMatt33 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very slippery Wikipedia:Systemic bias slope, differentiating equivalent men's from women's teams in notability. matt91486 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's no real reason to delete this; preseason discussions of rosters and such are already in the media, and it will just be recreated in the next couple of months. matt91486 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2015 (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.