Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Connecticut Huskies 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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane 2007  talk 22:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NSEASONS - Substantial independent coverage in sources is lacking - the school and team website  are not independent and do not qualify as secondary sources. Associated Press coverage of previous games and previous seasons are not substaintial coverage of this topic. Previous and current schedules are routine and not in depth coverage of this topic. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL; a championship season or a post season is an unknown; so this is probably WP:TOOSOON. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep - there has been substantial coverage of UConn's upcoming season already and this will only increase in the coming weeks. Articles like this and this and this represent significant coverage from reliable sources and articles like this and this are storylines of the upcoming season. Rikster2 (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the sources Rikster provided above. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 12:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per precedent at Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team. Following was my rationale before, which seems applicable here: "[Keep] per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. [It has] some verifiable information on the future season e.g. committed recruits, committed opponents, and/or committed early-season tournaments. I'll pre-empt any WP:CRYSTAL concerns, as the policy states: 'It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.' Based on past seasons, there is little doubt this upcoming season will take place, and the team will be notable. Deleting would require creating more work to WP:PRESERVE this useful information somewhere else ..."—Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Consensus is that Division I college basketball seasons satisfy WP:NSEASONS. We go through this every year. And even if it weren't inherently notable, the sources provided more than satisfy WP:GNG. Stop with the WP:POINT-y nominations, already. Smartyllama (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rikster2, Bagumba, and prior AfD precedent. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment In answer to Bagumba - part of your quote states "if discussion is properly referenced", which this article is not. Only one of Riskter's sources cover this topic. The others are stories about athletes without analysis of this season and does not qualify for significant coverage. I don't see why Div 1 seasons articles deserve special treatment pertaining to notability standards. Properly referenced is the standard here on Wikipedia - so all of these "seasons" articles probably should wait until there is coverage.


 * Also, the above mentioned AfD probably closed as keep because only one point of view, which was shared by all (except the closing admin), was able to prevail. This AfD is a good example. Only one of Rikster's sources cover this topic. Yet others jumps on the bandwagon citing Rikster's sources. And if the Admin only sees a discussion that claims an interpretation of wp:beaucracy and an interpretation of wp:crystal that supports this view - then what choice does a closing admin have ---Steve Quinn (talk)
 * Per WP:RUBBISH, articles are not deleted merely because they are poorly sourced. In this case, the information is verifiable, even if unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bagumba - I didn't say anything about poorly sourced. I don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, then its unclear to me what you meant by "In answer to Bagumba - part of your quote states 'if discussion is properly referenced', which this article is not."—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, not only is significant independent coverage of this topic is not available, there is only Risker's source that covers this topic - and even this says it is "too early to start any serious previewing of the 2016-17 campaign". There is some speculation in the second section regarding the upcoming UConn season - and I have to agree that this is useful coverage for this article. But the other sources do not directly support the topic of this article. Under normal Wikipedia conditions it is doubtful this article would survive.


 * So, my position is this article should not be in the main space until there is significant coverage in reliable sources that directly supports this topic. This is pretty standard in other areas of Wikipedia. But I am not seeing this standard applied in this area of Wikipedia. And I am not saying this is right or wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at Rikster2's first source, Jeff Jacobs: At UConn, Ollie's 5 Newcomers Have Melded To Become 1, which discusses the incoming freshman class for Connecticut's 2016–17 season. Why do you not consider that significant coverage for their upcoming season?—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not accurate to say only one of the articles I provided deals with the 2016-17 season. One talks about how five new players will have an impact ... On the 2016–17 season. One says a player is ready to step into a leadership role ... In the 2016–17 season. One talks about how a traumatic event has an existing player changing his number ... For the 2016–17 season. One says the school is looking to change conferences, a decision that will be a storyline for the 2016–17 season. That's the thing about coverage of a season, it takes many forms. It is incorrect to suggest that only articles that start "let's preview the upcoming season" are doing just that. Rikster2 (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, the link I provided is apparently not working - I should have checked it. Second, this is the link to which I was referring - - I believe this Rikster's third source. Third, it is accurate to say that only one of the articles deals with the 2016-17 season because the subject and the focus of those articles are the athletes. I can change this to say only one of the articles provide significant coverage rather than "deals with". Please forgive my inaccurate statement. One mention in an article is not significant coverage. The topic is 2016-17 season of this men's basketball team. Those articles do not cover this season. Only one does; the one that I just linked to. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but you are wrong. A long article about the impact of five freshman on the upcoming season is an article about the upcoming season. An article about a player stepping up to be a leader on a team is an article about the upcoming season. An article about a player changing his number for the upcoming season is an article about the upcoming season. This is the nature of continuous coverage – articles about various aspects of the upcoming campaign and the plays and circumstances surrounding it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are correct. Sufficient coverage is out there to sustain keeping this article. Although I don't agree on every reference, here is my analysis of the sources you provided (above and below?):
 * !. The first refernence is about the "top 5" and covers these five players . Where is coverage of the 2016-17 season? Also, how much are these players likely to play during the season given that they are freshman? It seems doubtful that they will have signifigant impact on the season. At the same time, there is no speculation or coverage on how they will impact the season - and I think these concerns would be related to counting as independent coverage, or whatever, for the season.


 * 2. The subject of the second reference is Alterique Gilbert, I think a junior, who has a shoulder injury . Obviously he is one of the best athletes in the U.S - but where is the coverage of the 2016-17 season? Again, there is no signifigant coverage or speculation on how he will impact the season. Maybe it can be inferred, but there is no way to tell how much of the season he will play, given he has had a recurring shoulder injury.


 * 3. The third reference is really good and qualifies for signifigant independent coverage . There is much material related to how well the players are expected to do during the upcoming season.


 * 4. The fourth reference discusses Pervis's tribute to his almost brother (who died way too young) by wearing "15" during his final UConn season . Combined with the third reference I think this is helpful as signifigant coverage. I would think other sources would cover this as well - just ruminating.


 * 5. The fifth reference is about maybe reaching out with an official pitch to join the Big 12 . I don't see how this relates to the 2016-17 season?


 * 6. Without much commentary - this sixth reference pertains to this season. It is a longish article about Rodney Purvis returning to play for UConn, even though he is possibly able to go pro, and other stuff he will be doing during the season.


 * 7. The seventh reference pertains to the "top 5" and I guess this is an important part of the story about the season - I didn't realize this. I guess they get along really well, and already cohere as a team. Also, "this could end up being a special group at UConn...the Huskies’ highly-touted freshman class–ranked in the top 5 in the nation by some outlets" ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I can see that the "top 5" players are a powerful addition to the basketball program, I am not seeing their significance pertaining to this specific season. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment consensus has not determined that Div 1 basketball seasons are notable - before satisfactory coverage in independent sources satisfy WP:SEASONS, otherwise there would be no WP:SEASONS. This how it breaks down (based on wp:seasons):
 * (A) "For college sports teams weigh both the season itself and the sport" - it is impossible to weigh the season because the season is not yet underway, and no commensurate significant coverage has occurred.
 * (1) "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable" - except the championship season or any other kind of season hasn't begun - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL.
 * (3) "A season including a post-season appearance or a high final ranking in the top collegiate level is often notable" except again there can't be a post season without a regular season first, and we don't know how things will turn out this year.
 * (4) This program might be considered elite being in the top tier - but the season still has to be covered in reliable sources, which it isn't.
 * (5) Lastly, "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only one !voter has cited SEASONS in favor of keeping, but that same person also cited GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep truncating the guideline to elminate this wording: "* For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g. Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline)." the UConn men's team is a top 10-15 program all-time and gets just about year-round media coverage due to he high interest level around the program. All of their seasons will be notable due to this, regardless of finish. With respect to the 2016–17 season specifically, I have demonstrated that on-going coverage as of August, 2016 is focused on the coming season and it already meets GNG. This is the nature of the top programs, which UConn certainly is. I am still researching the other programs you put up for AfD because I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that not all NCAA D1 program seasons are notable, but you happened to pick an elite program with this entry. It was about a 5 minute Google search to establish that the upcoming season is already notable. Rikster2 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not truncating the guideline - if you look you will see #4 discusses an "elite" program, and the season must still be independently (and significantly) covered in reliable sources, according to WP:SEASONS. And saying "they might be notable" is similar to fortelling the future, which wp:seasons does not support - because the season must still be independently covered in reliable sources - which is not possible - because a season does not exist yet. So, in fact, this article is about a place, time, and whatever else that doesn't exist.


 * I agree that Level 1 UConn teams probably gets year round coverage - and that is about the teams - but this is about the 2016-17 season - which is a different topic and which is not currently happening. I don't see any demonstration of GNG with one article specifically covering the topic. In other areas of Wikipedia, such an article would not survive. I am sorry to say, then please produce your sources that you discovered on Google that demonstrate this article about the 2016-17 season is notable. This is not the same as the team - that is a different topic - and notability is not inherited. I don't think conflation works on Wikipedia. If a season article exists, then there should be sources that support the season. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already produced five articles discussing the upcoming season for the program and have explained how they are discussing the upcoming season, which the article is about. You have said that those don't discuss the upcoming season, but in my opinion you are mistaken. But if you like, here and here are a couple more. There is more than enough to prove notability for Wikipedia articles. And always has been. You have not proven your case, man. Rikster2 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, the topic you've sourced is more like "Preseason coverage for the 2016-17 UConn Huskies", and even if you claim that it meets WP:GNG, WP:Notability has a higher standard for such cases, called WP:SUSTAINED, which is related to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Preseason coverage is coverage about the 2016–17 season. The article is about the upcoming season. Full articles about how various players and circumstances are expected to impact the upcoming season shows there is interest well before the season's opening. If you want to talk sustained coverage, the coverage about the 2016–17 season basically started before the last season ended (example). And since we know UConn is a top program and that WP:NSEASONS allows that some programs are such that every season will meet notability standards, we know that A) the season will happen, and B) there will be significant coverage all year. But there is already enough coverage for the article to exist. Rikster2 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even before I analyzed the above sources, I had to agree that pre-season coverage is coverage - and what I was looking for. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you now think that this article should be kept, then you may want to withdraw your nomination. Rikster2 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Incubate This is too soon for an article on this topic, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Based on the schedule in the draft, there is no season to report until 31 October 2016.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on why it is too soon? I'm sure you are not also proposing that United States presidential election, 2016 be incubated until November 8.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there anything a reader in the year 2026 would want from the current article? I don't see any such thing.  The article is a framework and a work in progress.  Comparing this with the 2016 presidential election is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although if you want my views they have been posted elsewhere.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, yes, in 2026 readers will still go to this article to see who was on the team, just as they do today with 2005–06 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team. I am not saying the article is fabulous as is, but even the information in it as I type this will be referred to for years to come. Rikster2 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If that were true, why does the Roster say "Roster", and not "The 5/28/16 Roster"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is information that is intended to be trashed.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't intended to be trashed, the 5/28 date is the meant to show the last update as numbers, heights and weights may change at various points (as well as added or removed players). It is the same form you will find at 2012–13 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team. It is possible that the roster was adapted by cutting, pasting and updated from the previous season but that the person didn't change the update date. Rikster2 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So if players may be added and removed, there will remain no record of the Roster as of 28 May 2016, in 2026. Who is the intended audience of this article with an unsourced roster dated 5/28/16?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's uncommon for players to shift, but it happens. The last roster update was a recent number change which is coved in one of the sources I have already linked in this AfD. The article is getting 60+ views a day so there is interest in the subject. What people in 10 years will look at that is already there is the roster, which will be pretty close to what is there today. I just don't find your argument that nothing on the article today will be referenced 10 years from now. Information still changes on historical figures from 100 years ago when new info comes up but that doesn't make the previous versions any less valid. That the article unsourced is a separate point, I don't think anyone has argued it is a well-sourced article, but that's pretty easily fixable. Rikster2 (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to quickly find sourcing for the roster in the sources you have provided. What sbnation says on 14 July 2016 is, "it's still too early to start any serious previewing of the 2016-17 campaign."  So is this article for "non-serious" previewing?  You seem to continue to view the roster as of 28 May 2016 as something of enduring interest, but I think it is intended by editors to be trash as soon as anything changes in that roster, and IMO the only way to ensure that the roster is correct as of 30 October 2016 is to not publish the article until 31 October 2016.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Conenssus absolutely is that NCAA Division I basketball seasons are notable, per Prior AfD precedent. As I said, it seems the nominator doesn't like taht precedent and is trying to prove a point. Don't. Smartyllama (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So what is your point? That it is ok to use mainspace for draft articles?  Why not use draftspace for draft articles?  Do you think readers are impressed by the quality of workmanship they see here?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That AfD does not speak for consensus at this AfD. I don't know where that information comes from. Prior AfDs do not form policies and guidelines, nor are these effected by an AfD. Local discussions do not count as Wikipedia-wide consensus. Discussions that are Wikipedia-wide can change policies and guidelines. An AfD with only seven participants who are of similar mindsets regarding the creation of college basketball seasons articles - before the season begins - will not change Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the second time I am being accused (by User:Smartyllama) of unsavory behavior as if I am editing or acting in a manner that is somehow pointy. I do not appreciate this, because this is a serious accusation. The first time you brought this up in several current and ongoing AfDs I ignored it. And, there is no way you can attribute motives to me that I don't have and have never exhibited during my seven years of editing on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with my editing behavior then take it to WP:ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I do not appreciate being baited by telling me "Don't". This is inappropriate. Please continue the AfD discussion with normal indentations. I indented like this so it can appear as a side note (actually unrelated to this AfD). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep From what I am getting from these conversations, the concern is not that these pages will not become notable, but whether they are currently notable before the season starts. I would argue that they are notable because there are hundreads of reliable sources with pre-season information (ESPN, Yahoo, NBC, FOX), including the release of the official roster. More of those sources could be added to the articles for additional verification. WP:FUTURE #1 says that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.", which they are, and "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." which can be verified by number of reliable sources. I have personally been involved in discussions about this numerous times a year for many years and it has always stemmed from the ambiguity in WP:NSEASONS, which I think should be updated to specify what they mean by an elite team (D1 MBB, D1 WBB, D1 football, other D1 sports that are broadcast nationally, etc.) and specify that articles can be created during the pre-season as long as they are appropriately sourced for said elite teams.  If this is not done I am afraid that quality could be lost if all 351 articles need to be created during the season. WikiProject College Basketball has been working non-stop on the 2016-17 article campaign since April and it is still not done for the 2016-17 season which starts in just two months. Starting in November, I think would greatly sacrifice the quality of articles, and there is no reason to when the majority of the information in the article is known beforehand and can be written in accordance with WP:FUTURE #1. Those are just my thoughts on the subject. Mjs32193 (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is going to exist in a few months either way. What good will be accomplished if we delete it now? Lepricavark (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This challenge is a ludicrous waste of time — the current year is here, the current season is approaching, if people want to start getting these inevitable articles rolling now, more power to them. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep since I see no reason to continue this ridiculous exercise. Out of all the teams, powers like UConn can get a sourced article several months in advance. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 02:47, 12 August 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.