Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Rhode Island Rams 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 Snow Keep. Clear consensus with only objections by AfD nominator, a new account, and their sock account. As an aside, procedure was not followed to place a notification on the multiple nominated articles.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

2015–16 Rhode Island Rams men's basketball team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Rhode Island Rams men's basketball team Stats )

The article fails WP:NSEASONS Per past discussions, the article fails WP:NSEASONS and the team did not qualify for a postseason tournament, be it the NCAA Tournament, NIT, CBI, CIT, or Vegas 16. Therefore it violates WP:NOTSTATS as well as WP:NSEASONS. I am also concerned that the articles lack adequate third party coverage. GLenhart1 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, as they either not a well known basketball program or did not qualify for a postseason tournament:


 * Strong Keep First off, the account GLenhart1 is just one day old. Secondly, college basketball is incredibly popular in the United States and if you simply Google search the phrase in "Google News" receives over 15.9 million results, making it safe to say it passes the WP:GNG sniff test. Additionally, Google has all DI games scheduled on their site API, as does CBS, ESPN, NBC, and so on and so forth. If that isn't adequate third party coverage, then I don't know what is. That alone in my opinion allows it to pass the WP:NSEASONS sniff test. If these were DII programs, then I would think GLenhart makes a strong point; however, I think DI programs, especially in college basketball have enough notable coverage to meet GNG, regardless of how well the team does in the regular season. Quidster4040 (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the age of my account is irrelevant in the discussion, so I will go ahead and say that is not an argument. You're in direct violate of WP:AADD by trying to invalidate my statements by my age of the account. GLenhart1 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AADD is an essay, not a policy. What did I say that violated AADD? I'm seeing nothing. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Every Division I team has their own page for at least the last 3, maybe 4 to 5, years now. Same with every Division I football team. If they all get deleted then why even create any page until the season is over? We would have to wait until the post season to decided if a page is worthy of inclusion? That's crazy. And deleting all that work from so many editors seems wrong. It will make college basketball and college football editors seem like their work is meaningless. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is just WP:ILIKEIT, not an argument. GLenhart1 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and ban GLenhart1 per Quidster4040's discovery on the new account. Reeks of WP:VNDL. Also I think Quidster and Bsuorangecrush say it all in their arguments, so I will mimic them. Twwalter (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment also in a review on WP:NSEASONS, GauchoDude make valid claims on what WP:NSEASONS covers and I think these articles do not violate it. Twwalter (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment that is WP:AADD esque, don't you think? GLenhart1 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment GLenhart1 is working on Draft:2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season. I can easily argue that every single Division I men's basketball team having their own page is far more important and "well known" than any college soccer program. Another thing is who are you to decide what is a "well known college basketball program"? In the Mountain West you nominate San Jose, Air Force, and Colorado State but why not Fresno State, Utah State, or Wyoming? You are just deciding yourself that they are more important? I agree with Twwalter, this reeks of WP:VNDL. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Quidster, where are you? Come back and make an argument! GLenhart1 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw Quidster was buttmad over it deleted so I decided to rewrite the draft to make him happy. GLenhart1 (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you say this violates WP:AADD? Quidster4040 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I did not look at every article, but the ones I did look at lacked references. However, I have no doubt that reliable, independent, third-party references exist to prove they meet WP:GNG with more than just WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you didn't look at every article, then you don't have an argument. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't made individual cases that these seasons don't meet GNG either. You have just said they didn't play in a postseason tournament and have made assumptions. Rikster2 (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's correct, therefore it is not WP:GNG and WP:ATA. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep for several reasons. (1) All Division I football and men's basketball season articles have been deemed the top level of amateur competition in the United States in their respective sports, and the consensus for literally 8+ years has been they are notable. (2) User:GLenhart1 reeks of WP:SPA, WP:VNDL, and most definitely has a previous beef with someone who supports these types of articles existing. (3) Glenhart1 claims the nominated teams are "not well known" yet that's a deadly combination of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per Bsuorangecrush above, Glenhart1 is wildly inconsistent. I hope that any admin worth his salt can read through this petulance and speedy keep. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep For Division I programs, even those in smaller conferences, every single game is covered by 6-10 different regional and/or national sources. Teams are previewed in just about every major sports publication/site, recruiting classes covered, etc. in short, there is no shortage of reliable sources available for any D1 college basketball program. I'm sure that these articles could be improved, but that doesn't mean they don't meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling me inconsistent make you violate WP:AADD by namecalling. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

* Delete Glenhart makes a good point. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above and long standing historical precedent. Yes, these articles could be improved, but deletion is not cleanup. As Rikster said, sources certainly exist. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Were you trying to use a second account? You forgot to log out, if so (and broke the rules) Rikster2 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm making my own argument. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't vote twice so I struck through it. Also, a little weird you'd refer to yourself in the third person. Rikster2 (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. These arguments are ignoring WP:NSEASONS Glenhart2 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, you really can be banned for WP:SOCK so cut it out. Rikster2 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think that comment alone is enough proof of vandalism. This discussion seems pretty much over. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment :I know I should follow WP:FAITH2, but I feel safe in saying GLenhart2 and GLenhart1 are the same person, and he's a terrible troll. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep these pages are an important form of information presentation. Please ignore the WP:SPA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Really??? College basketball season pages have been around for a while and are clearly notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment As if this isn't obviously going to close as speedy keep all, one further point: The nominator didn't tag any of the articles for deletion except the Rhode Island Rams one. There is not sufficient notice to article creators or editors that these were nominated, and therefore procedural keep all if nothing else. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination by an obvious sockpuppet. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Someone got bored, looks like a sockpuppet to me. even you wouldn't do this! Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - I recommend against a non-admin closure of this. The Admin who closes this is going to have to go through the nominator's Contributions and reverse all their additions to the various pages they've edited. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per comments of Quidster4040, Jrcla2, Rikster2, and Ejgreen77. João Do Rio (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2017 (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.