Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season


 * 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. There is not a single source in any of these articles that is not a clear WP:PRIMARY source. Claims therefore noted below that the seasons pass WP:EVENT are entirely unsubstantiated. There is no indication that these seasons have received significant, reliable, third party coverage as a season rather than a synthesis of match reports. Claims below that the articles pass WP:NSEASONS are erroneous as that guideline is concerned solely with college teams, not their competitions. Simply put, with no indication of GNG, these articles are clear WP:NOTSTATS failures. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

2016 America East Conference men's soccer season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." which also results in failures of WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:NOPAGE. Doesn't satisfy WP:EVENT or WP:GNG requirements.

Existing consensus already achieved at Articles for deletion/2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament and Articles for deletion/2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament, which are identical situations.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasoning as above:



– GauchoDude (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. is right, this sort of coverage should be developed in the main article first until it becomes clear that it can stand alone. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a waste of time and resources to nominate. On the contrary, meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT because of reliable sources and third party sources. Quidster4040 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: There is clear consensus for related articles that, despite your repeated objections, this does not satisfy notability criteria. GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: there might be a consensus in your head. However, there is no valid criticism that it doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Might as well remove all the college basketball and college football conference season articles while you're on a bloodlust purge. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Quidster4040, in his objection, has removed the AfD template on the following articles:
 * 2016 America East Conference men's soccer season as you can
 * 2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season as you can
 * 2016 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament as you can


 * – GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles are well developed and satisfy WP:EVENT. I don't see the issue. And to those who say it should be developed in the main article, this is the main article. The prior AfDs were for tournaments, which are part of the season and arguably should be part of the season article itself. That argument doesn't fly in this case. Smartyllama (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom: Per your opinion,, which criteria of WP:EVENT does it satisfy? The inclusion criteria are, as defined by WP:EVENTCRITERIA, are a WP:LASTING effect, a large WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH of coverage, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE sourcing.  For me, none of those are met, but to the contrary this seems WP:ROUTINE.  I find it difficult to fathom that individual seasons would be worthy of stand-alone articles when the sport doesn't have one (similar to the tournament and the America East Conference page doesn't even have a section on the entire sport's history. GauchoDude (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - season not tournament. Seems notable enough. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom: appreciate the feedback here.  Can you elaborate on "Seems notable enough" and how you arrived to that conclusion?  Up above (to User:Smartyllama), I noted the WP:EVENTCRITERIA for which I'm having trouble justifying inclusion.  Would be interested to hear your take on these and which you feel is(/are?) met.  Thanks! GauchoDude (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NSEASONS defines when for college sports teams, an individual season for the top collegiate level is notable. Surely then it goes without saying that the season article for the entire league is notable! Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Think it's time to close the debate. There's a clear consensus that the article should be kept. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all - don't need season articles for college soccer. GiantSnowman 08:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not GiantSnowman? We have season article for other college sports such as ice hockey, baseball, football and basketball. There's no legitimate reason to invalidate soccer? Quidster4040 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 6 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.