Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 NCAA conference realignment


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 NCAA conference realignment

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Uh, it didn't really happen. We didn't, and probably won't, get superconferences. Only 2 teams switched BCS conferences (1 moved up to a BCS conference, one switched non-BCS conferences). Not a realignment--should be renamed to something more accurate if kept.  Pur ple  back pack 89    21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep notable event covered by lots of media. Texas staying in the Big 12 kept it from balooning, but still at notable event in college sports structure. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but it didn't happen. It wasn't a realignment.  Superconferences are a no-go.   Pur ple  back pack 89    21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't mention superconferences that you do, I think the first line of the article sums up what it's about: "The 2010 NCAA conference realignment refers to several proposed and actual conference expansion plans among various NCAA conferences..." Just because "superconferences" weren't created doesn't mean the event isn't notable. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the term "realignment" shouldn't be used. This isn't 2004 or 1994-6   Pur ple  back pack 89    22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it was a notable event in that there was almost a massive realignment, but instead there was a modest change. But I would be fine with changing the title. Remember (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A name change discussion (on the article's talk page) is different from an AfD. If it was a mistake to AfD this by a new or inexperienced user is there a way to expedite the process and end it, rather than a typical AfD dragging on for a week?Bhockey10 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that I've made 4,000+ edits over the course of 18 months, that'd be a mute point. There is WP:SNOW if it gets lopsided, but don't count your chickens before they hatch...it's only 2-1   Pur ple  back pack 89    22:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to know about the WP:SNOW. If you have any rename ideas we can start brainstorming on them and other users' on the articles talk page. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources.  Grsz 11  23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I don't think the title is terribly misleading, but there could be a better one. Location (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This AfD is a joke right? And the article title seems perfectly appropriate to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought so too at first, but apparently not :-P Bhockey10 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I proposed it because it's a non-event that doesn't deserve coverage. The 1996 and 2005 realignments featured more than 20 teams switching conferences, and in the 1996 case a major conference self-destructing.  This is no bigger than 1992, when Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC.  The title should be changed to 2010 Pac-10 and Big Ten expansion:  there was no realignment, just a couple schools switching conferences   Pur ple  back pack 89    04:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have 5 conferences directly involved and numerous reliable sources referring to it as conference realignment. It's a realignment. A modest realignment compared to the 2005 realignment, but a realignment all the same. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would seriously doubt that it has been referred to as a realignment since Oklahoma, Texas, &c decided to stay in the Big 12. I'd like you to find some realible sources that call it a realignment after those schools stayed put; I'd be willing to bet there aren't many, if any.  Your 5 conferences statement is misleading because no conference has more than two schools moving; again not that different from when Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC in 1992.   Pur ple  back pack 89    17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sports Illustrated and Sporting News websites both still appear to be referring to it as a realignment as of last week, and I find nothing misleading in any of my previous statements. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * SO I think I understand, b/c Purple doesnt think it was big enough compared to what it could have been it's not notable and should be deleted and/or renamed. So maybe we should delete the Cold War since it never lead to World War III. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a flawed example, as I'm sure you knew that when you placed it  Pur ple  back pack 89    23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep — Probably the biggest story in U.S. college sports in 2010, possibly the biggest since the major 2005 realignment. Reported by countless reliable sources, with ESPN and SI only being the most prominent. And, even though major realignment didn't take place this time, at least one well-known columnist believes major realignment will only be a matter of time. That having been said, I have no objection to a change of title. — Dale Arnett (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is weird...over at simple, United States presidential election, 2012 was one vote away from being deleted, yet I can't get one concurrance that this non-event/mass of hot air isn't notable? By the way, Dale, your columnist could be construed as WP:CRYSTAL, especially since it may not be a wholly realiable source.  As I said, if kept, title should be 2010 Pac-10 and Big Ten expansion, as the main onus for it was for those conferences to get championship games and fat TV networks   Pur ple  back pack 89    14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that there couldn't be a better title, but the title you suggest is much worse than the current title. As I've said before, there are currently 5 conferences involved in this event and you seem to want a title which encompasses only 2 of them. And AfD is not really the place to have a discussion on changing the title of an article. What the title is has absolutely no bearing on whether or not an article should be deleted. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but of the only four schools involved, 75% of them moved to either the Pac-10 or Big Ten; and the remaining 25% moved as a replacement for a school lost in Pac-10 expansion. And your "five conferences" argument carries little weight, because no conference had more than two schools actually moving, in or out.   Pur ple  back pack 89    15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we just disagree. Though from some of your comments, you seem to be unhappy about this whole conference expansion process. Perhaps that displeasure is influencing your view that this article should be deleted. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your WP:Crystal argument doesn't work, because it's varifiable, notable, sourced information that certain schools, such as Texas, were in talks with other coferences and ready to move. And like myslef and others have said the title is fine, it wasn't the huge shakeup that it could have been, but it was still a realignment with a handfull of big schools changing conferences. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this event nearly completely destroyed and rebuilt the NCAA Division I for all sports, not just football, and some said it endangered several Division I schools with dropping down to Division II. Such a significant event should be a part of this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep — I understand the argument that no major realignment resulted in this huge mess. However, it was a major story and this article covers the speculation and considerations made by many more colleges and conferences aside from just what did happen. I would propose changing the title to some like "2010 NCAA Pac-10 / Big-10 Expansion" ... Yes, I do realize those were not the only conferences involved, but that title is accurate and the explanation surrounding the other conferences would be found in the article itself. Change the title if necessary, but don't flat out delete the article. -- Frontrange (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not really the proper forum to discuss a name change. If, after this AfD is closed, there is still a desire for a name change, then it should be listed at Requested moves. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm not arguing for a specific name change, only that I'd prefer a name change over the article being deleted. -- Frontrange (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The user who nominated it for deletion opened the door for naming included in his original reason for deletion: "Not a realignment--should be renamed to something more accurate if kept." maybe confusing Requested moves with AfDs. I's been said already and I agree, the name is fine, it was a NCAA conference realignment (smaller than what could have been) but still one. 2010 NCAA conference realignment is a reasonable title. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article title is fine as well. I was merely pointing out that what an article is named has absolutely no bearing on whether or not an article should be deleted. The 2 questions are mutually exclusive and should not be blurred together as they seem to have been in this nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty much they were blurred together for some reason. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me! I retract my renaming recommendations and I will simply say I think this was a hugely news-worthy event and that this article should remain. -- Frontrange (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It was the subject of intense media reporting for months. Not only did a fairly significant re-alignment occur, but there is nothing definitive that says it is over yet. Strikehold (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;notable event with significant media coverage. No opinion on the title. –Grondemar 12:19, 2 July 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.