Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament


 * 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 redirect to America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. I've been going back and forth between no consensus and redirect for a while here, but I seem to have settled on redirect as the fairest option. As far as actual valid arguments go (and there are plenty of invalid ones to sift through), there is fairly even disagreement over whether the sources provided clear the bar of WP:ROUTINE (sources must be more than routine), and also whether WP:SIGCOV is met by the sources provided, some of which are regional roundups and some of which seem to discuss individual games - some not even in the tournament - as opposed to the entire tournament. (Note that WP:OSE goes both ways - while the existence of articles for other conferences' tournaments does not affect the suitability of this one for an article, nor does the non-existence of articles for other years' tournaments for this conference.) In the end, though, the vast majority of the scant information that is covered by the potentially notability-giving sources is already included in the redirect target, so the content is generally maintained anyways, just in a different place.

I would also encourage those inclined to start a discussion about tournament notability as Tim Templeton suggests; as Govvy says college sports (especially association football) are really in the WP:NSPORTS gray area. I note that several people have suggested that WP:NSEASONS applies, but it doesn't - that portion as currently worded is for individual team seasons, and tournaments in general aren't mentioned outside of specific sports on the WP:NSPORTS page. ansh 666 08:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous season was deleted by AfD at the start of this year. (See Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season.) This article fails the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NSEASONS, WP:GNG) for the same reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, with all due respect, how many citations to relevant, third party links are you looking for until you vacate yourself from the WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Quidster4040 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Per my comment above, the article meets the notability guidelines of WP:NSEASONS for the following reasons:
 * Per WP:NSEASONS, "Team season (or in this case tournament) articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players". We should aspire for these pages to not fall under WP:NOTDIR. The following sources are cited to cover the relevant topics of information in this article, as in, where it is, who played, and who contested the championship, and what was the outcome for the finalists.
 * 1) America East website, for official organization verification
 * 2) Albany Student Press
 * 3) Burlington Free Press
 * 4) Baltimore Sun
 * 5) Lowell Sun
 * 6) I'm also confident if further citations are needed beyond these third party sources that covered the tournament, we could find plenty of information, analysis from the likes of the NCAA website, TopDrawerSoccer, SBI, SoccerAmerica, and other publications that exclusively cover soccer. Not having enough citations, and yes, only seven citations is quite a lowly number, does not constitute the article therefore fails WP:NSEASONS
 * Next, the nominator believes that this article does not meet WP:GNG. The article actually does meet GNG for the following reasons:
 * First concern may be it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. A quick Google search of "America East college soccer" results in 1,950,000 pages. A news search brings back 3,970,000 results. A search explicity for "college soccer news" draws 8,400,000 results. The first pages of these results shows extensive coverage of the tournament from third party sources, newspapers, sports-focused websites and soccer-focused websites. Clearly, this meets the significant coverage criteria. So let's move on...
 * Reliable sources is the next concern potentially. So what is a secondary source? I think all the listed articles that detail and explain that are beyond the athletics websites are good barometers. So here are 10 links that focus or discuss on the A-East Tournament. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. I think this meets enough secondary sourcing beyond the main athletic websites.
 * Multiple sources expected. Article has seven sources, and could easily have close to 20. Meets criteria.
 * Independent sources. All these websites, sans perhaps the Albany Student Press (although it is not an athletics website), are independent on the tournament, meaning we might have just 19 sources in this discussion.
 * Final concern would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Are these just brief summaries? No these articles feature interviews, summaries on the season, perspectives and explain the match more than just a box score.

That being said, I strongly believe it is safe to say that this article easily meets WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. I'm deeply worried that the nomination was made out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than thoroughly examining whether or not the article truly meets GNG and NSEASONS. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment let's actually provide reasons for supporting a deletion, instead of a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE argument. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect - No independent notability but a plausible search term. Sourcing in the article shows individual matches get some local level reporting, but so does pretty much every league in countries where football is popular. I'm not seeing any specific coverage of the season as a whole event. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This article's about the tournament, not the whole season. Tournaments generally get more coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources clearly indicate significant coverage of the tournament. I too am concerned that this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. There are plenty of sources. Knock it off. Smartyllama (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Individual match reports =/= coverage of the tournament. Where are the articles on the tournament as an event in itself? Happy to accept the tournament is notable, happy to accept the teams are notable. This doesn't mean that individual iterations of the tournament are notable in themselves. They need to show GNG as an independent subject. For example, are there any articles from third parties previewing the tournament as a whole or summarizing the tournament post completion? Bringing together disparate match reports and saying that = GNG is too much like WP:SYNTH for my liking. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, per my reason above, if you take the time to read my post, you would see that there are more than just match reports. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments I really don't understand why you are applying WP:NSEASONS to this, this comes under WP:SPORTSEVENT, also is the competition competitive or friendly, and where does it sit in the ladder, American soccer seems to do my head in sometimes for being so poorly organised. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite organized, there is simply a lot of bureaucracy at this level of the sport in the U.S. that can make it look like a hot mess. This tournament that is being nominated for deletion is a competitive tournament, and part of college soccer in the United States. In the U.S., college/university sports (especially American football and basketball) are generally very popular and do serve as avenues for nurturing professional athletes. This tournament is the championship for the America East Conference, one of the 20 conferences that play in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's first division. (There are three divisions). Each conference at this level selects one team to receive an automatic berth in the NCAA Tournament, which is what this tournament's purpose is for. At the top collegiate division, there is normally significant press coverage, as these tournaments can exhibit future soccer players that may play in MLS or USL. Several professional footballers such as Clint Dempsey, Vedad Ibišević, Neven Subotić, Santiago Solari, Alexi Lalas and Alejandro Bedoya played college soccer in the United States before turning pro. Nowadays, many pro athletes in MLS go through the academy ranks, but college soccer does serve as a net for players that may have been overlooked at the academy level. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It is an article that would otherwise be a redlink in the navbox (Template:2017 NCAA Division I men's soccer season) at the bottom of the page. No reason to delete it. [[User:PCN02WPS| PCN 02 ]] WPS 19:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then edit the link out of the template. Elapsed time, six seconds.  Sheesh.   Ravenswing   06:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I think the above keep votes have some weight, I'll look for more independent coverage. Still a tad unsure of the tournament's long term coverage or if it meets WP:GNG. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: A powerful lot of turgid and irrelevant arguments here. First off, this just fails SIGCOV and ROUTINE; despite airy assertions that sources exist that discuss this particular season of this particular tournament in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, none have been produced, and the article is free of aforementioned "well-sourced prose." It is not a valid defense at AfD to assert that qualifying sources may exist; they must be shown to exist. I'm unmoved (and hope the closing admin is likewise unmoved) by simple lists of the media outlets providing this tournament with routine sports coverage. Beyond that, whether players in this tournament go on to professional soccer, is "part of college soccer" (we did notice that, thanks), whether pro players once played college soccer and whether this particular tournament was competitive are just plain irrelevant to the discussion. Was this a tournament that people played in, attended and followed?  Seems so.  Does any of this have anything to do with whether it meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article?  No.   Ravenswing   06:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This argument seems more fixed on WP:ATTP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with assumption that the pro-keep argument is "turgid" or "irrelevant". If you read my argument it definitely follows under the WP:SIGCOV umbrella. The point that it receives coverage, especially from a wealth of sources certainly fits the SIGCOV narrative. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: A lot of non-notable players and this tournament imo is not notable. Also, Ravenswing's points are valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the tournament determines an automatic entrant into the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship, which makes it notable. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  00:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you link to the notability criterion that satisfies? Certainly not WP:SPORTSEVENT, which governs the notability of individual series.  In any event, notability not being inherited, its connection with the NCAA soccer championship is irrelevant.   Ravenswing   01:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NSEASONS says:
 * A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.
 * This tournament sends a winner to a post season appearance. Division I is the top collegiate level. I'm interpreting that to show notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 05:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per my closing comment at Deletion review/Log/2017 November 30, so that a clearer consensus may emerge.
 * Delete - Ravenswing is correct, sources must shown to exist. Yes, there's plenty of routine coverage, but in depth coverage of the tournament is required. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Opining because I've reviewed the sources and the arguments here, but am now too deep into this to close it. After having read the sources in question, I do not see them as providing anything more than routine coverage of the matches and teams in question. I do not see them as going far enough towards establishing the notability of the tournament itself: they possibly establish notability for the seasons of the individual teams, but I'm uncertain about that, too. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm relatively new to this whole process, so I don't really understand why this was closed in the first place. Those advocating delete aren't really citing (or at least linking to) any Wikipedia policies that state why the sourcing is inadequate and what is required for the article to be notable. Could somebody clarify this? I too worry that the nature of the arguments made leans more towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than actually making arguments against the article. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep After re-reading a lot of the comments and earlier arguments, I'm weakly in favor of keeping the article. I share some of Ravenswing's concerns regarding WP:SPORTSEVENT but I'm wondering where the line gets drawn concerning the first bullet "The final series... determining the champion of a top league". WP Footy is already not very receptive towards college soccer and the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I'm not really sure where that somewhere should be. I think it's worth pointing out that since my previous comment three days ago no additional wikipedia policies or guidelines have been linked to dispute the article. I also find it off-putting that Quidster's arguments were not rebutted and were casually ignored, and that the article was initially deleted anyway. We need to do better to come up with a consensus. Jay eyem (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was subconsciously thinking the same thing, and I'm glad someone caught on. It's that type of potentially deliberate ignoring that continues to tempt me that it was a JDL, bad faith nomination, and bad faith deletion. I don't want to take anything away from Raven's comments, which I personally disagree with, but it is unsettling that one fleshed out delete argument is supposedly good enough for a deletion whereas three, perhaps four fleshed out keep arguments are disregarded. Baffles me that others would wonder why I would then be tempted that I feel it's JDL. As far as WP:FOOTY is concerned, I think part of it is they have a general ignorance to the sport of college soccer primarily due to many of them being from outside the U.S. and may not have an understanding, or willingness to understand for that matter, the relevance of collegiate soccer in North America. For now though, I think WP:CSOC is a decent task force to keep that JDL party in check. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Arguing in the alternative, I propose a Redirect to the page America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament as this is a plausible search term. Jay eyem (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments, I got pinged because I commented on this earlier, my opinion is that GNG or not, it seems to fail NSeasons to me. But I am neither for keeping or deleting, because it's college soccer and not professional soccer I tend to stay away from these articles, it's a grey area in wiki-policy. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was pinged as an earlier commentator, and voted to keep, but I also agree that the general coverage is weak. This is partly because of soccer's lower status in the US, and partly because this is not a "Big Five" type conference; correspondingly, members of this conference don't tend to win the NCAA tournament.  The majority of the coverage is therefore institutional.  Nonetheless, I hope one day we will see an agreed upon policy that any postseason tournament in the following major Division I sports (baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer) with a tournament that automatically sends the champion to the NCAA is notable.  With the long tail of knowledge, there will always be an audience for this information, and that's what the encyclopedia is about. TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That pretty much reinforces why I feel like this was a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, bad faith nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * weak keep Sources discuss specific games and teams at the tournament, but I'm not seeing a solid RS that covers the tournament itself. If someone can find one, I'd probably jump to a regular keep.  But most (all?) the the tournament did see coverage--just very spread out.  I think it's not at all clear from our rules.  Oh, I think "routine" coverage is basically box scores etc, not high-prose articles in RSes. So I reject that argument at least. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for re-opening the discussion to see if a consensus can be reached. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm shocked that the article was deleted in the first place, especially when there is one compelling delete argument, by Ravenswing, which feels partially WP:IDONTLIKEIT by their tone. That, and the remaining delete votes are WP:JNN (ahem, Snowman and Sports1234), WP:DIDNOTWIN (because it's a smaller Division I conference) and WP:VAGUEWAVE (nominator) arguments. The keep votes may point to a handful of suspect links, but the Albany Press, BFP, and Baltimore Sun bits show enough notability to meet WP:GNG: they're independent of the athletic website, they recap the tournament, and furthermore, they provide details on the tournament and what is at stake in the tournament. Plus, if we do some routine TopDrawerSoccer.com, CollegeSoccerNews.com, SBI and Soccer America coverage of the sport and conference is enough to also meet WP:SUSTAINED. Cobyan02069 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep— It was deleted without due cause before, and it is more notable now... GWFrog (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm more tempted that the original admin's closure saying he "wasn't impressed" with the sources provided seems like JDL quip. I cannot continue to stress enough that routine coverage is met with these links, which Hobbit describes as websites showing box scores is more than enough to meet routine coverage. What is the admin looking for them to feel compelled to realize it meets GNG/SIGCOV? A freaking Sports Illustrated quadruple-page cover story on the depths of this tournament? Quidster4040 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of keeping it, but in the closing admin's defense, the fact that routine coverage exists is not usually used to support keeping articles but instead to support their deletion. Box scores are a perfect example of routine coverage. We usually like to see more than routine coverage. In this case, I'm basing notability on the tournament's linkage to the NCAA tournament. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. No material content other than stats and match results. Quidster4040 is encouraged to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. HindWikiConnect 14:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel that way, ? I don't think WP:JNN is good enough. Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, I feel universally at this point there is NC (fair points from Quidster and Ravenswung both for and against), if the final call is Keep, that's fine and I wouldn't have any further comment. However, if the consensus manages to swing towards delete, we should instead consider to redirect to America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament, because it's a plausible search term, but perhaps (I say this from an arguendo perspective), not plausible on its own. Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To help reach a conseus, I will consult WP:CSOC members who haven't discussed in this debate, to see what their viewpoint is on this tournament:, , , . Cobyan02069 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * -I understood. HindWikiConnect 03:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete--I thought for long.And Vanamonde andf Stifle convinces me enough. Winged Blades Godric 13:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and create-protect 2018, 2019 and 2020 titles to save us from another AfD next year and for the following reasons: 1. Generally there is insufficient content and sources for both the Tournament and the season every year 2. The parent article itself has lingering onesource tag, (removed after this comment). There's insufficient content to write meaningful article and (in my analysis, even notability concern). 3. The Tournament page has been repeatedly created every year and every year get deleted, it is just not notable: * 2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2012 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; * 2013 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2014 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2015 America East Men's Soccer Tournament *2016 America East Conference men's soccer and now this year 2017. There is also intention for creating it next year as infobox of this has shown. Note that All these past versions where deleted via full AfD not speedy or PROD. In addition, after AfD deletion of the season 2016 America East Conference men's soccer season it was recreated record 3 times  until the title was salted to sysop-create only. Even after that it was recreated with varying letter case and later redirected. I believe it is time to save editors' time and indefinitely sysop-proctect creation for at least 3 years to come. I have no doubt nothing will change. Because Notability cannot be created where it exist not.–Ammarpad (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit pointy, don't you think? Quidster4040 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will assume you don't actually understand what WP:POINTY is all about. Nonetheless, you were already given good advice by another user above. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will assume you don't actually understand what WP:POINTY is all about. If you read the details of the policy, you will see that placing the parent article/future events and lumping it with the main article counts as deleting from an important subject. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - seems to me there is a small number of editors trying to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion without any one presenting sufficient independent sourcing showing non trivial coverage of this tournament as an event in itself. Ammarpad's comments are particularly convincing. Fenix down (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I genuinely am not trying to bludgeon, I'm new to this entire process. To me it feels like everyone assumes that they and everyone else knows how these policies work without linking to them. I just find it odd that those arguing delete haven't directly disputed Quidster's arguments (other than Ravenswing), they haven't answered Quidster's questions, and they haven't linked to any Wikipedia policies that demonstrate that it fails notability guidelines. The nominator made reference to a previous AfD without addressing what actual arguments they want to address from that AfD. Ammarpad and Ravenswing are the only ones to actually link to something, and even there they are essays and not policies or guidelines. What exactly would constitute, as you put it, non-trivial coverage? Totally missed your first comment on the page, my bad. Jay eyem (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep meets GNG and SIGCOV via Quidster and Templeton. Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but the championship game itself was broadcasted on the ESPN Network family, which, in the U.S., is one of the premier sports coverage networks. That alone should easily meet the notability concerns Raven and Ampad are worried about. Twwalter (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would the broadcast of the championship game indicate that the regular season was notable? Fenix down (talk) 07:53, 11 December 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.