Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Plainly violates WP:NOTSTATS on its face. Possibly WP:NSEASONS as well. I have no problem rescinding this if it can be reliably sourced with prose. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  01:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  01:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete fails NSEASONS, and I see there are a few other older seasons of theirs with only stats that could go as well. Reywas92Talk 06:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, I don’t think this fails WP:NSEASONS except that the current poor article construction doesn’t hit the standard that “Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory.” But the last line of that section says: “It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.” This team was ranked in the top 10 most of the year, went to the NCAA Tournament, and had a highly-publicized regular-season game against Kentucky when both teams were ranked in the top five nationally. Sourced prose absolutely can be created and this isn’t a close case (like a middling team would be). The article needs prose written and sourced, and I am not a big fan of people writing articles and not bothering to demonstrate notability from the start, but I am even less of a fan of articles being deleted as “not notable” if the subject is in fact “notable.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Have any of the delete !voters searched for sources, perhaps Sports Illustrated or old newspapers? The team was ranked in the top-10 most of year. I'm almost certain there is coverage, especially for a big-time program. Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD, but that sounds exactly the reason this is being nominated. Failing an SNG is cannot be a sole reason to delete.  Per WP:NSPORTS: Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, ...—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm less concerned with the WP:NSEASONS SNG than I am about WP:NOTSTATS. This article, as it stands, clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS, a part of WP:NOT, as it's a copy and paste job from a statistical directory. It can probably be improved, and I mentioned as such in the nomination. I've come across a lot of college basketball articles very similar to this one at AfC recently and have declined them for failing what Wikipedia is not. I noticed this one got moved to mainspace within the last couple days, so I AfD'd it. If we're going to keep articles that fail WP:NOT but may be notable once they don't fail WP:NOT, that'd be good to know. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. My philosophy is not based solely on whether the article is currently all stats. If the topic meets GNG, independent of the state of the article, I ask if the current stats shown are verifiable (even if not cited) and if I would expect to find such stats if the article was an FA. In this case, I would expect a table of results in an FA article.  It's another question of when this ideally should have been approved from AfC.  An alterative besides AfD could have been to boldly move it back into Draft namespace or reach an agreement with the approver.  Perhaps that could be an option here too still.  But this effort should not be lost if the topic is in fact notable.  Some editors only want to contribute stats. They have a place in Wikipedia, within limits.  This is not necessarily a sports phenomena.  See 2018_California_State_Assembly_election.  Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, do you believe every college basketball season notable? I'm asking because I just tagged 2012–13 Hartford Hawks men's basketball team as unreferenced, seven years after the AfD. I'm fine with draftifying this, but so many really poor season articles (unreferenced or sourced only to the school record book) get kept on WP:NEXIST grounds and then never get improved. Since the AfC standard is "likely to be kept at AfD," I'm trying to figure out if I should just accept these articles at AfC even if they're terribly referenced since they're likely to get kept as-is, but that still seems problematic to me somehow? SportingFlyer  T · C  02:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I generally dont edit season articles outside of UCLA. I'd be more skeptical of any program not in the Power Five, but I dont follow those programs enough to have a definitive opinion yet. I suggest bringing it up at WP:CBBALL to see what others think.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that pretty much all NCAA men's division I seasons are going to be notable given the significant coverage that comes at that level - coverage is constant and there is national interest in teams from all over. The coverage NCAA division I football and men's basketball gets is very similar to what top professional leagues get. I live in a town with two mid-major programs (one traditionally strong one, one sort of mediocre) and from about two months out from the start of the season to a month or so after there is daily coverage not only locally, but across a number of states - not just game summaries, but feature articles about the team, coaches, fans, etc. That is a separate question as to whether or not hastily-written articles that aren't more than results tables should be written. The first goes to notability, the second goes to acceptable standards. I can add a few sources to this article this weekend when I have time - I looked and they are plentiful (as I said, this is not a close notability case), but I just won't commit to go deep into writing season articles - it is not an area of interest for me - I much prefer to create/work on articles about people. I do think the article being promoted from AfC as is likely shouldn't have happened, and may be something to discuss with the editor who promoted it. Like I said, give me the weekend and I can at least get the sourcing/prose to a minimally acceptable level. Rikster2 (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The rule at AfC is "likely to be kept at AfD." I'm happy to functionally withdraw my nomination if we can source this properly, but if all NCAA men's seasons are presumptively notable (not discussed by WP:NSEASONS, to be fair) would that mean these sorts of articles should just be brought over regardless of the state of their sourcing, since they'd be kept under WP:NEXIST? I hope it's clear I'm trying to address something I see as a problem and I hope this isn't coming off as WP:POINTY. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think new articles shouldn't be promoted if they don't meet standards for season articles (ie, no prose, no reliable sources) and this should be communicated to anyone with AfC reviewer or new page reviewer access. That seems like a safeguard that could be added to that process relatively easily. For the ones that exist, I guess take it to the college basketball wikiproject. I will tell you, a LOT of people view these articles so just deleting them out of hand seems like a bad move. The new ones are created by a handful of users, so seems like they could be educated as to what standards for these articles need to be. Rikster2 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good course of action to me. I will note the Hartford men's basketball pages, the ones unreferenced for six-seven years, only receive a handful of views a month. I'm not sure those seasons are actually notable. I think a team in a more prominent league would be presumptively notable. I think part of the problem is it's difficult to figure out when WP:NSEASONS is actually met via WP:GNG, for any sport, not just college basketball - for instance, when is season coverage not routine? But that's a topic for another day. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NSEASONS can be improves. It's currently more akin to Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and a quasi-style guide.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Would you mind striking your delete !vote so I can withdraw the nomination and move this back to draftspace? That seems to be the best course of action here. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on sources I have identified below, I'd suggest at this point to not shuttle back and forth between namespaces. We could just "Speedy keep" it if the deletes are withdrawn. I'd aim toward tightening AfC a bit to more of "unlikely to be AfDed", which I would still be consistent with "likely to be kept at AfD". Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't move it back to draftspace, I already said I would add more prose/sources this weekend, which is a reasonable timeframe for me to offer. Rikster2 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent source. I've found "A Preview of the 20 Top College Basketball Teams". November 25, 1979, The New York Times, "The Top 20". December 1, 1980. Sports Illustrated, "High rating doesn't rate too high with Carnesecca, Valvano". December 2, 1979. New York Daily News during the season. After the season, there's "ND eyes 8th straight NCAA tourney". November 12, 1980. The Kokomo Tribune and "IRISH VS. DE PAUL: IT'S STRICTLY PERSONAL". February 21, 1993. Chicago Tribune. There's plenty more.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG, per Bagumba's sources. Like Rikster said, this was a top-10 team through most of the season for one of the most notable athletic universities in the country. The idea that this ever wasn't notable is ridiculous. Could the article be improved? Sure it could. But, that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue (i.e. Deletion is not cleanup). Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG. This has never been about notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is it stated that NOT trumps GNG? Wikipedia is not a list of stats, but that doesn't address an article that can be improved beyond a list of stats IMO. To me, this case is no different than the plethora of one-line Olympian stubs with no independent sources that get AfDed and then improved to meet guidelines (like the recent Diana Soto). The subject does not fail WP:NOT, the article as it is presently constructed does. Rikster2 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, and there's no evidence WP:NOT trumps that. Also, AFD is not cleanup. The present state of the article is irrelevant and by nom's own admission the subject is notable and does not violate WP:NOT. If it weren't for the additional delete !vote I'd suggest speedying this. Smartyllama (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's directly in WP:GNG itself, under the presumption section. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the part in GNG is talking about article subjects. This subject does not fail NOT. This is the distinction I have been making. The subject “1979-80 Notre Dame men’s basketball team” is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the current poorly-written article is, and that can be corrected. Rikster2 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Prose and sources have been added to the article. Rikster2 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.