Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 SMU Mustangs men's 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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NSEASONS - Substantial independent coverage in sources is lacking - the school and team website are not independent and do not qualify as secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL; a championship season or a post season is an unknown; so this is probably WP:TOOSOON. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that Division I college basketball seasons are notable, and I feel this is a WP:POINT-y nomination by someone who doesn't like that consensus. Enough with these. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consensus has not determined that Div 1 basketball seasons are notable - before satisfactory coverage in independent sources satisfy WP:SEASONS, otherwise there would be no WP:SEASONS. This how it breaks down (based on wp:seasons):
(A) "For college sports teams weigh both the season itself and the sport" - it is impossible to weigh the season because the season is not yet underway, and no commensurate significant coverage has occurred.

(1) "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable" - except the championship season or any other kind of season hasn't begun - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL.

(3) "A season including a post-season appearance or a high final ranking in the top collegiate level is often notable" except again there can't be a post season without a regular season first, and we don't know how things will turn out this year.

(4) This program might be considered elite being in the top tier - but the season still has to be covered in reliable sources, which it isn't.

(5) Lastly, "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Conenssus absolutely is that NCAA Division I basketball seasons are notable, per Prior AfD precedent. As I said, it seems the nominator doesn't like taht precedent and is trying to prove a point. Don't. Smartyllama (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I am being accused of unsavory behavior as if I editing or acting in a manner that is somehow pointy. I do not appreciate this, because this is a serious accusation. The first time you brought this up in several current and ongoing AfDs I ignored it. And, there is no way you can attribute motives to me that I don't have and have never exhibited during my seven years of editing on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with my editing behavior then take it to WP:ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not appreciate being bated by telling me "Don't". This is inappropriate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That AfD does not speak for consensus at this AfD. I don't know where that information comes from. Prior AfDs do not form policies and guidelines, nor are these effected by an AfD. Local discussions do not count as Wikipedia-wide consensus. Discussions that are Wikipedia-wide can change policies and guidelines. An AfD with only seven participants who are of similar mindsets regarding the creation of college basketball seasons articles - before the season begins - will not change Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion would be pointless. Lepricavark (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lepricavark and prior AfD precedent. I also agree with this excellent comment in a similar AfD discussion as to the practical logistics of deleting and recreating this entire series of articles (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ought to come into play here). Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2016 (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.