Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament


 * 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. There is some sentiment for a merge, but no reasonable merge target currently exists. Moreover, the people arguing to delete are doing so because the sources do not meet our requirements, and merging five articles into one doesn't change that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT for "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." Also doesn't appear to pass more general WP:EVENT or WP:GNG requirements. Same rational and with set precedence as Articles for deletion/2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament GauchoDude (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reason(s) above:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Ample coverage of tournaments in reliable sources. Article could be expanded, but AFD is not cleanup. See, , , , , , , , , , , and , which demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources of the tournament over the years. I said at the time that the AfD cited in the nomination was erroneous, and I stand by that. These tournaments generally receive significant coverage from reliable sources, and thus satisfy WP:GNG as well as WP:NEVENT. Although it should be expanded, that's not a rationale for deletion per WP:POTENTIAL. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete all - While there is coverage in several reliable sources, as demonstrated by, that coverage is predominantly local coverage. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Coverage of matches in local news is not sufficient to meet GNG, and several of the sources provided (specifically 5, 7, 8, and 9) fail the independence test being either the school's website or a school newspaper. I have to concluded that WP:GNG and WP:EVENT are failed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many school newspapers operate independently of the school, though I don't know for sure about the ones in question. Furthermore, the links on the BU website are the campus newspaper, not a university press release or similar. Is operating independently of the schools enough to qualify them as independent sources even if they're still run by students at the schools? I don't know, but they're certainly more independent than, say, the athletic website or a release from the school itself. In any case, the other sources are clearly independent, so that much is a non-issue. The only question is whether the sources satisfy WP:GNG, which as I said above, I think they do. Smartyllama (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Operating independence does not necessarily mean journalistic independence; one would expect a school newspaper to report on sporting events in which the school participates, regardless of whether the publication is run by the school, by a club within the school, or by a third party. Per WP:Independent sources, there are three criteria for determining independence, the second of which is "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" (emphasis original) By definition, school newspapers are closely affiliated with the school, therefore can not be considered independent for purposes of meeting WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of them are journalistically independent. I remember when I wrote for my college's newspaper, the athletic department tried to strip us of our press credentials because we covered a fight the star football player was in and they didn't like it. But they failed because we had journalistic independence and because other papers took our side. Naturally, we covered sporting events because they were of interest to our readers, but we had full journalistic independence. We had plenty of articles which were critical of the school or administration, which we couldn't do without independence. Sure, we focused on school issues and events because it was the student paper, but every paper focuses on issues that are close to its readers. That doesn't mean they lack independence. I don't know about these papers, however. They might be journalistically independent, they might not be. I'm not sure. But as I said, there are others which satisfy the requirement. Smartyllama (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep all these pages need sources, but there's plenty of sources available, and the articles can be improved. No reason to delete them just because the article creator didn't source them. Clearly notable tournaments. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge them all Some sources have been found for the tourney, but not much (AFAICT) for each year. So merge seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources I had found were for basketball, not soccer (yes I should have noticed) and even those weren't great. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge all, preserves content in a more efficient manner. Montanabw (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from the nominator: Merge seems a popular option, but where would we merge to? There isn't a topic for America East Men's Soccer Tournament which these articles would naturally roll in to as they're yearly breakdowns, or even a America East Men's Soccer Conference as a catch-all for all things soccer specific to that conference.  It seems counter-intuitive to me that we'd keep these very basic statistics and layouts solely due to passing references that an event/tournament happened and not have articles on any larger, overarching topics.   Ultimately, this seems like WP:NOTNEWS, an English Wikipedia policy, in that per #2, ..."routine news reporting on things like ... sports ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." GauchoDude (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we could have an article on the tournament itself (not by year). Each of the articles has a little bit on that anyways.  Then we could list the winners of each year or otherwise have something around a paragraph about each... Hobit (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone (hey, you busy?) writes up some general basket article for these to fit in, that's where they can go. So, merge. Without that merge suggestion I'd say delete, since there simply is no coverage of the tournament. The sources mentioned above establish that the tournament exists, but existence does not equal notability. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we get a merge outcome, please feel free to userfy what we have to me and I'll take a shot at it. Probably pretty stubby, but it will be a start. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, the sources appear to be even worse than I'd first thought. I can find decent coverage, but literally nothing that's independent. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete these articles, with the option of userfying if someone wants to use these to help create America East Men's Soccer Conference in future or some such. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete these articles and merge into America East Men's Soccer Conference ALongSleep (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ALongSleep is a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no such entity known as the Ameirca East Men's Soccer Conference - it is the America East Conference and it sponsors sports including, but not limited to, men's soccer. So merging to a page under that title makes no sense. If consensus is to merge, America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament would make more sense, and be consistent with similar pages. Smartyllama (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge all the articles to America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament as explained in the previous post, also there is not a lot of content in each article so a merge would not be too cumbersome Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2016 (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.