Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

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 no consensus. Some sort of Merge/Redirect is probably indicated, but since there's also no consensus about where that should be, I don't see any other close. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1944 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament[edit]

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

This basketball tournament never existed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say Merge with 1945 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament. Endofskull (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Endofskull suggests. I think it's worth keeping around the information (and its citation) that there was no 1944 tournament due to the US involvement in WWII. I don't think that's enough information to warrant a whole article. Susfele (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barring more details on the tournament, such as the structure it would have had if it had not been canceled, I'd say a merge/redirect is the best solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Vodello (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It "existed"; it didn't take place as scheduled, similar to the 1994 World Series or the 1940 Summer Olympics, all of which are notable because they are part of a regularly scheduled set of events that are notable, hence there's a template to . The background of a cancellation of an event for which preparations were made (in this case, wartime restrictions on travel) is sufficient for a stand-alone article. In any event, Wikipedia articles aren't limited to successful ventures. Mandsford 03:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless somebody has some info about the context surrounding the tournament, it should go in my opinion. This is not at the level of the Olympics in terms of how the event venue is awarded, etc. If it was just another NAIA tourney set for Kansas City, I fail to see why an entry is required. Definitely do NOT merge with 1945 - it isn't the same year. Why not merge with 1943 if you're gpoing to use that logic? Rikster2 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as stand-alone article per Mandsford. Ok, so there's no statistical information to include, but personally I'd like to know why it never occurred. I'm an intelligent enough person to figure out that it was probably due to WWII (assuming this article didn't exist), but I can't speak for every single Wikipedia user out there. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment. I went ahead and added a ~~strike-through~~ on 1944 on the NAIA template. It shows that the event did not take place, but if you want to know anything further, you can still click on it. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I changed my mind, this isn't worth keeping. I removed the strike-through, de-linked the year, made "1944" a light grey and also added an in-template footnote. I don't think anything more needs to be said about the tournament. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - You could always find the reasoning at the main NAIA tournament article, which would be a good target to redirect to, if anything. The fact is, there simply isn't that much historical significance with this, unlike the two World Series. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it should be up to the reader to have to research what happened to the 1944 tournament. Providing the 1944 tournament's link/article makes it accessible. In terms of historical significance, the NAIA was still very much a respected governing body for basketball back in the 1940s. The NCAA Tournament was still new (only 5 years old at the time), and the NIT was the top basketball tournament. In context, the NAIA tournaments are important, whether the event was held or not. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Meh, there isn't any information in this article. You could just as easily asterisk the 1944 entry on the template and main NAIA tourney article with a key at the bottom that says "Cancelled due to WWII" and achieve the same level of info given in the article itself. What's next? A 1998 Pac-10 Tournament article? I don't have a ton of passion around this eaither way, but common sense tells me there is no useful info here. Rikster2 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of an event probably received as much coverage as the actualized events listed at Category:NAIA Men's Basketball Championship, all of which do not have more sourcing then this article. --Pink Bull 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Common sense. We have entries for every year and leaving a blank is going to mess up the organization style. So this one is not very detailed, for good reason. But the organization scheme of the subject's coverage demands it. Don't merge with 1945, that would not be user-friendly.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It didn't happen, and for good reason. Leaving a blank makes perfect sense, if it didn't happen. I'd go with Rikster2's suggestion of asterisking. --Worm 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that something did not happen is not by itself a reason for deletion. See Year 2000 problem, an article about something that did not happen. As with everything else, its notability and verfiability that decide whether we should or should not have an article about a subject and this subject appears to meet both criteria. --Pink Bull 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Merge: As author it was the intention of all the tournament years would get pages, as I was primarily doing this by myself it was a bigger undertaking than I first thought. But as information from reliable sources comes it, it would be great to keep it. Or have a merged link in the 1945? so that there wouldn't be a dead year in the easy-directional quick links at the bottom of each page.
- As others have said, we could simply strike the year out and asterisk the bottom. That's all that would ever be on this page. Other non-occuring pages are different, they were a huge event with a lot of planning and/or contain context as to why it didn't happen. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:46, 17 November 2010 (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.