Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Big West Conference 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 no consensus. Some sources noted here which have been added to the article which shows there is some degree of coverage of the season but to be frank it's not exactly overwhelming. As noted by one editor below its probably the bare minimum at best. I don't think we are going to get anything else out of this discussion and I don't believe the keep argument is sufficiently strong at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous seasons of tournaments at this level have been consistently deleted or redirected at AfD in the past: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The same reasons from those AfD's apply here. Individual seasons of this tournament do not receive sufficient coverage, beyond routine sport reporting, to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep for another WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominee on Sir Sputnik's war against college soccer. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Further, I would like to remind Sputnik that there has never been a true consensus in the past, despite his best efforts, and numerous closures have been overturned due to the lack of consensus. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep there's not a consensus that these strictly need to be deleted. At least it should be redirected  to Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. Certainly in its current state, it requires additional citations to demonstrate that it meets WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment as an aside, we really need to have a conversation about whether or not these events (NCAA D1 conference tournaments) are inherently notable or not. I know a conversation was started at some point after the 2017 America East AfD, but there needs to be greater participation. Jay eyem (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the topic alone meets WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. The tournament offers an automatic berth into the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament, the premier college soccer tournament in the United States. If this was a Division II or Division III tournament, I would say it may not meet GNG since DII and DIII universities receive little coverage compared to DI. Further the tournament features notable athletic programs, especially in the college soccer game, such as UC Santa Barbara and UC Davis. The only concern I have with this article is that there is only one citation, which makes the article look like WP:OR. Cobyan02069 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NSEASONS applies to seasons of individual teams, and so does not apply here. I have to questions on what basis the article meets the general guideline, as the article is based entirely on primary sources, all of which are routine sports coverage (five match reports, and an announcement by the organizer). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. As noted above, WP:NSEASONS doesn't apply here, there's only one source, the source is primary, and university divisional tournaments typically are too routine to pass WP:GNG since they don't generate much if any substantial press coverage. SportingFlyer  talk  04:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SPORTSEVENT is the SNG I was looking for, and this doesn't come close to meeting it. Therefore we're reliant on WP:GNG, which we haven't come close to yet either. SportingFlyer  talk  09:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still not a reason to delete no matter how many times you try to force it through. A DI soccer tournament featuring an automatic bid into the NCAA Tournament is clearly notable, especially when it features prominent programs like UCSB. This is getting old. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where's the significant secondary coverage, then? SportingFlyer  talk  17:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep after a quick search of the term in Google News, I was able to draw several dozen sources related to the tournament. I went ahead and added them in the article. I personally find the sources that commentate on UC Riverside's first Big West title notable in that it is not routine coverage in that it is an in-depth analysis from a third party resource about the importance of the program winning the tournament and being able to participate in the NCAA Tournament. Another article emphasizes the program's turnaround over the last two years to make the tournament. So with that in mind, I believe the article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Twwalter (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that first link for GNG purposes but The Highlander News is the school's student paper, which is similar to a pro team's official website covering the team. The LA Times article which was added is not significant coverage, either. SportingFlyer  talk  04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Typically, I'm inclined to agree with the Highlander News, however, the newspaper is a publication independent of the university, albeit it has university-specific coverage, which signifies a reliable secondary source. If it was the UC Riverside athletic website, the university news services, or the conference reporting the tournament, then I would feel that it would not meet GNG. So that being said, I will respectfully disagree with The Highlander News being not notable. Twwalter (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While we disagree on this, I understand and appreciate your response, thanks! SportingFlyer  talk  20:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, I'll kindly ask that SportingFlyer avoids bludgeoning this AfD. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why, because I responded to the two commenters beneath me, pointing out there is a serious sourcing issue with these amateur tournaments? Accusing someone of bludgeoning is a very serious matter, and I kindly ask you strike your comment. SportingFlyer  talk  04:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do the WP:SATISFY approach to each "keep" comment arguing that it meets WP:GNG, yes, I will say you are bludgeoning, so no I will not strike my comment to make you feel better. Furthermore, if you're going to complain about these tournament articles existence because they're an amateur collegiate tournament, I would suspect then that you will also like stuff such as the 2018 Big West Conference Men's Basketball Tournament, 2018 Pac-12 Football Championship Game, the 2018 Atlantic Hockey Tournament, and the 2018 Big South Conference Baseball Tournament deleted, too. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been only two keep votes after mine. One of them didn't make a WP:GNG argument but rather a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The other comment added sources to the article, but two of the three sources don't qualify for WP:GNG. None of these arguments were frivolous. Finally, I'm saying this article should be deleted because it doesn't pass WP:GNG, not because it's an amateur tournament. Not every university soccer tournament receives enough secondary coverage for its own article, and no one has yet shown this one does. SportingFlyer  talk  05:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It seems, to me, to meet the bare minimum.Trillfendi (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per previous consensus. Does not met GNG. GiantSnowman 08:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's safe that there is a consensus that the article should be kept, particularly per the reasons provided by and . Specifically Twwalter's comments that the sources used to meet WP:GNG are independent news sources not part of the schools nor conference, and that there are articles that offer in-depth reporting. Like what Quidster is saying earlier, we shouldn't do a purity test on how in-depth the coverage is, but based on the links Twwalter provided, I think it shows there is evidence to show the importance of the tournament in general, to the NCAA Tournament, and to the university's soccer program. I get where  is coming from since early on SportingFlyer replied to several comments, but I don't believe  was bludgeoning the thread, or at least, attempting to. Sporting's comments and concerns are fair, but I think Twwalter presents a stronger case, in my opinion. That said, I move for a non-admin closure to keep the article. Cobyan02069 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2019 (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.