Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Final Four

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 redirect to 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Tawker (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Final Four[edit]

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

The subject matter about which this article describes is already discussed, and will be extensive at 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament upon conclusion of the tournament on April 7. Therefore, this page is not needed, as it just duplicates information already discussed on a larger, more central page. Ben^Yes? 00:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the tournament article is sufficient to cover the Final Four. We have intentionally not created final four articles for past years at WP:CBB. Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I could find no discussion about Final Four/Championship Game articles at WP:WikiProject College Basketball (to which your link does not point). Unless there was one I couldn't find, it is quite obviously not an intentional decision of the WikiProject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rikster2, but only if a redirect to 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament is not a better option. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An optimistic Michigan fan created this as fancruft. WP:CBB does not create Final Four articles when the comprehensive NCAA Tournament article exists. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Although I wouldn't be opposed to creating an article on the championship game. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to page as stated above, the coverage will be on that page and the redirect will let people serch for final four also and be sent to the NCAA page TheMesquito (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the pertinent section of the tournament page, per the above; that would be a good policy for all "[year] Final Four" titles. Simple_butpowerful 00:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Develop in 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament unless WP:SPINOUT is warranted (historically, no). No redirect as per Final Four, there are a bunch of other "Final Fours", and we get into the gender ambiguity as well.—Bagumba (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia almost always has articles for the "final stages" of major sporting competitions (the major exceptions should be gold medal matches in the Olympics), whether or not their parent articles are developed at all. I realize that it is completely optional and depends on the people on whether to have one for this type of event, but the argument that "the parent article is shitty/awesome" is invalid. As long as there enough sources to go around to create a real article, there's no reason not to. –H T D 00:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled by the rush to delete and agree with HTD - almost all sports have a tournament article and a final game article (even much less popular sports than NCAA basketball). I realize there has not been a Final Four/final game article in past years, but there is absolutely no policy based reason for that. The F4/final game are quite obviously independently notable. Having both a F4 article and a final game article would be overkill, so at most it should be one. If no one desires to write a decent final article, then the main article is sufficient, but if some one wants to write a good final article they should certainly be allowed to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the current article is poor, I am fine with redirecting at this time, but only as an editorial decision based on quality, not as a "this shouldn't exist as an article" decision. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2014 (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.