Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 SIU Edwardsville Cougars men's soccer 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

2015 SIU Edwardsville Cougars men's soccer team

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails to meet WP:GNG through a lack of significant coverage. Cited sources are WP:ROUTINE and a large number of citations and prose does not change that fact. Season also fails WP:NSEASONS as the team did not make the NCAA Tournament. Recent prior consensus for such articles exists here. Jay eyem (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and delete anything similar that has been un-redirected by . This is getting annoyingly repetitive, it isn't close to meeting WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom and previous consensus. I would also agree that any other MSOC seasons that are similar be brought to AfD as noted. Having the same conversation over and over resulting in the same ending is tedious. GauchoDude (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG -- Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  19:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all the above. Dismal GNG failure and I entirely agree with Joseph's comment about removal of redirects. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per the reasons laid out by the nom. Lorenzo the great (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, no good reason to keep this.--Mvqr (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete – as detailed by nom, this mass of sources doesn't have enough SIGCOV to meet GNG. There's a lot of prose, but simply having a lot of information on the page doesn't make it notable. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2021 (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.