Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 New Mexico Lobos 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. Consensus is abundantly clear that in this particular case deletion is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2009–10 New Mexico Lobos basketball team

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a pro forma nomination because the article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. (See Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas/Archive for details.) I have no opinion on the merits of the article itself. Lady of  Shalott  21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  21:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to New Mexico Lobos men's basketball. Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep No reason given for deletion. Article is clearly notable, a season for a Division 1 school. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously notable per Coasttocoast. If it weren't for the merge !vote, I would ignore all rules and speedy keep it.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons given. Don't merge - there is a difference between a page for the historical context of a D1 basketball program and an entry for a specific season. Rikster2 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think that the notability is being questioned so it seems spurious to use this as an argument. The article has been created and mostly edited by a banned user so should arguably be deleted simply for that reason. Everything except for the statistics is POV and OR. If the article is kept it needs to be completely rewritten and sourced in my opinion.Mah favourite (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment as Mah favourite correctly surmises (and which I thought I made clear in my nomination, but apparently did not), the nomination has nothing to do with the notability of the subject matter, but that it has almost entirely been written by a banned user. If it were not for the fact that others have contributed to it, it would be speedily deletable under criterion G5. I hope this clarifies the matter. Lady  of  Shalott  06:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Honestly, I don't have much passion either way, but it seems silly to delete a valid article for that reason unless it is a spoof, vandalism or some such. It's a valid article on a notable subject so I don't see why it should be deleted out of hand.  It's also linked to a number of pages of the College Basketball Project.  I'm not volunteering to revise and update it, but if someone else is what's the problem? Rikster2 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – while it is general practice to delete pages/contributions by banned users in violation of their ban (see G5) so as to discourage banned users to repeat their actions, deny recognition, and not undermine the banning policy, the page has had some substantial edits by others – meaning somebody else was able to step in and take responsibility (but not ownership, as nobody owns articles here) of the article. There are no other problems that I see what would otherwise warrant deletion here. MuZemike 02:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a wonderful article created for the 2009-2010 Lobo Program. As a new user myself, Let someone show pride in their team, These kinds of pages are all over wikipedia.. I could make a list of 30 of these kinds of pages, most of the users probably have mutiple accounts. The user who created this page worked really hard. It is not easy to create such a page, It takes lots of time and I would like to thank the banned user for adding wonderful work to wikipedia, because No one owns articles on this site. It is by volunteers. So have some respect. It would be horrible to merge because the existing UNM Basketball page is already a mess, instead of the editors trying to mark and delete everything lets fix it. User: LadyofShalott, I'm sure you would not like it if someone wanted to delete your hard work articles you have created! ZekeW (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't allow creations by banned users who violate their ban (except the caveat the matt91486 and myself mentioned), regardless of how "wonderful" the article is or how much "hard work" they put into it. Otherwise, why are they banned in the first place? See Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime and Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca for past recent instances. MuZemike 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not really that "wonderfully written". It needs some cleanup in order to make it more neutral in tone. MuZemike 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ignore all rules in this case. As long as the content is notable and being edited by others, it's counterproductive to delete it. matt91486 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: User: MuZemike Why don't you help out make it "wonderfully written" then, if we work together it will be a great or "wonderful" article. Complaining about it won't change it. ZekeW (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - this discussion was closed earlier as keep by ZekeW. As ZekeW is a new editor, I presume he just did not know an editor involved in the discussion should not close it. I reverted the close and am posting this here for full disclosure. Lady of  Shalott  02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a D-I school. It's notable. Others have edited it. It's a keeper. NThomas (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Matt91486. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2009 (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.