Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Weber State Wildcats 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)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  03:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 Weber State Wildcats men's basketball team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this team in any detail. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 01:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Not notable.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NSEASONS as an individual men's basketball season in the top amateur league in the United States (NCAA Division I) which garners hundreds of millions of dollars annually for this sport alone. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the season hasn't yet begun, so there's that. If you'll notice, 2016–17 NCAA Division I men's basketball season there's dozens of teams that have had articles created for the upcoming season. Lizard  (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:SEASONS as mentioned above. The NCAA Division I is the top amateur league in the United States, and seasons in it are notable. The season hasn't started yet, but there is enough information available from Reliable sources to merit an article. Smartyllama (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above, and prior AfD precedent. For some reason, it seems like we have to keep having this same discussion over and over again, every single year. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually, this fails WP:NSEASONS (see below) and is probably WP:TOOSOON.
 * (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. Maybe Montana and Idaho each have a couple of top guns.
 * (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".
 * {Note) The other AfD mentioned above, should have resulted in delete according to these standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment That guideline really doesn't take into account how current seasons should be handled, it seems to focus exclusively on historical seasons. Seems like it needs some major re-work. There are many sport seasons that meet WP:GNG months before they start. I am still evaluating if this particular season does right now, but I have been surprised at how little coverage it has gotten compared to other programs. More to follow. Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There has been significant coverage of Weber State basketball in reliable sources, including, . and . Division I college basketball generally gets huge coverage in the US no matter who the team is, and thus even if it didn't satisfy WP:NSEASONS, it would satisfy WP:GNG. I already voted, but just wanted to address the GNG concerns. Smartyllama (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw those but I would consider those WP:ROUTINE. Usually with many college programs you get pretty in-depth coverage of the upcoming season by this point. I'm thinking stories like this and this and this. Not saying Weber State doesn't meet that, I just haven't looked very hard yet. Rikster2 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Every men's division I team has had a season article for at least 3 years now.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment mentions that wp:seasons "doesn't take into account how current seasons should be handled". It may seem that way, but it actually does account for a season in progress. Once the season is underway, it is likely reliable sources will cover the season and its games. So, it is not actually about waiting for the season to be over. Also, I have had a second look at the sources User:Smartyllama presented. I think the first source suffices  - this seems to be what I am looking for. And I think the second source is marginally in there . Both of these sources appear to be providing independent coverage that could be construed as significant. This is because the season is the subject of both articles. Furthermore, if I read wp:seasons correctly it is essentially saying that Division I team seasons only need to pass WP:V, because they are already in an elite program (or something like that). I'll have to read it again. What do the other editors think of this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Lizard  (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep it serves no purpose to delete this now, only to recreate it a few months down the road. Lepricavark (talk) 02:34, 8 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.