Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Long Island Blackbirds 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. Consensus for its inclusion has become unanimous. (non-admin closure) -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Post-closing note: Sorry, but it wasn't quite unanimous. I still think this has doubtful notability, and the very existence of the season, while very likely, is not certain. Nevertheless, I think this was a WP:SNOWBALL so I won't fight the consensus. Cmprince (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 Long Island Blackbirds men's basketball team

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This topic is not yet ripe for an article. The roster listing is a speculative crystal ball. Cmprince (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional information: WP:NSEASONS is a relevent guideline for this article. Cmprince (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you are arguing that past seasons do not meet WP:GNG (I'd be surprised with a NCAA Div I program), and therefore next season's article is unlikely to meet it as well, IMO we are quibbling whether this should be deleted now only to have it re-created a few months later.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am now requesting this AfD page be closed. --BbJeter (talk) 11:12, 31 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * IMORTANT INFORMATION FROM Bbjeter: I have deleted the roster and kept the rest of the article as is. I will add a roster as soon as a credible source becomes available, such as the roster being posted on the school website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbjeter (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Bbjeter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are credible sources for the roster. I can add them as needed.  Bbjeter  21:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do - that would go a long way toward establishing the suitability of this subject at this time. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Pure and unambiguous speculation. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not an expert on the subject, but one tends to agree with these comments. No sources to prove credible. Most likely a crystal ball. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Just remove the roster and keep all else. The team will still compete this academic year, leave the page as a stub and as the season starts, fill in the details. The page does no have to be deleted, just the content edited.--El Mayimbe (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This school has an existing basketball program, and it's almost certain a season next year will be played. It's reasonable to expect players that have not graduated, dropped out, or announced intention to play professionally are candidates to play next season.  No reason to go to the extreme of waiting for the first game to be played to be 100% sure of the roster.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a very good reason to do just that. Content in this encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate. Including a roster for a team that has not established a roster yet is blatant speculation, "reasonable" expectations aside, and is as such inappropriate. I have concerns about including this article at all, but the roster absolutely has to go either way unless it can be sourced. It's totally unverifiable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Can anyone supply a single reliable source covering the 2012-2013 team? I've looked and I can't find anything at all. Setting aside significant WP:CRYSTAL concerns, if there is literally no sourcing available for this subject then it pretty plainly fails WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NSEASONS, the last of which looks for "well-sourced prose." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a New York Times reference to the article regarding their home arena next season.—Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing the roster certainly removes most if not all of the speculation I saw when I first looked at the article. And I have belief that the content in the article is verifiable. But until I really get to see firmly that it is, then for now I'm changing my !vote to Neutral. Currently, the debate is centered around the the lack of significant coverage. This may be, this may not. But I think that WP:CRYSTAL has lifted somewhat from the removal of the roster. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The removal of the roster and the added NYT source are both very helpful. The NYT source doesn't necessarily address the subject directly and in significant detail, but it's evidence of already-present discussion of matters relating to the 2012-2013 season in major sources. If I thought it meant anything I'd qualify my keep vote as being "weak," but I've never understood what that actually accomplishes :). I do think we're jumping the gun a bit in having this article, but there is practically no doubt that this article will at some point be necessary and, given that there's already some addressing of the subject in a source as major as the NYT, I now think this ought to be kept. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will then agree. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 19:59, 29 March 2012 (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.