Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 Arkansas Razorbacks 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   delete. The consensus is to delete - whether this should be re-created when the season starts or not is another issue. Also, if it will end up like 2009–10 Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball team, which relies almost totally on the team's own website for sourcing, then perhaps it should not be recreated even then! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

2010–11 Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball team

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Stifle, WP not an almanac. In addition, the 2010–11 Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball team can hardly be notable when they've yet to play a game at the time of this entry.RadarsFinger (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete sorry I just don't agree that indiviual college team articles should be kept Secret account 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball. Once adequate sources are provided for the 2010-11 season to support significant text, the article can be restored. Rlendog (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I won't comment on whether this should be kept or deleted, as, not being a North American, I find the whole idea that any college sports could possibly be notable bizarre, but I would point out that the nomination is totally at odds with the basic statement Wikipedia's fundamental principles, in which "almanac" gets equal billing with "encyclopedia". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2010 (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.