Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022–23 Michigan State Spartans women'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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

2022–23 Michigan State Spartans women's basketball team

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Another contested redirect woefully undersourced. Should be redirected or draftified until enough sourcing is provided, but that's no longer an option, so we are here. Currently fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball,  and Michigan.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have to wonder if any WP:BEFORE effort was taken prior to this nomination. (Or perhaps an April Fool's Day nomination?) Like the Auburn season articles nominated the other day, this article is for a top-level team that attracts significant coverage for each modern season. Examples in this case include here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, part 1/part 2, part 1/part 2, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (The State News not independent but there is also extensive coverage in this publication as well). This is a clear WP:GNG pass. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The nomination reads like WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is the only course of action which could be taken as per recent discussions at ANI. As I said, should be redirected or draftified until sourcing is provided, but that is no longer an option.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bagumba has cited the correct passage above. It would help if you could read through it. E.g., "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." In your nomination statement, you say that the article "currently" fails WP:GNG, but an AfD needs to consider the existence of sources not "currently" in the article. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows that this subject does, in fact, pass GNG. Would you consider withdrawing this so everyone can move on to other issues? Cbl62 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. This is the avenue I was told to pursue at ANI, and I agreed to abide by the consensus of the discussion.  When an article does not pass WP:GNG, reviewers can do one of several things rather than sending to AfD or PROD, once those other choices are contested, regardless of how absurd the contention, and the article is not improved enough to pass WP:GNG, PROD or AfD are the only options left.  Believe me, I would rather not have had to bring this (and quite a few other articles) to AfD, but as per the ANI discussions, there is no other option.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what ANI consensus you are referring to, but I doubt there is any "consensus" suggesting that you should nominate articles for deletion where a simple WP:BEFORE search easily reveals abundant WP:SIGCOV such that GNG is plainly satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The practice you are outlining (nominating for deletion without regard to whether SIGCOV exists) not only runs afoul of AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but also is contrary to WP:INTROTODELETE: "When not to use the deletion process: Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." Cbl62 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe Onel5969 is referring to this discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. There is clearly no "consensus" there that it is acceptable to nominate an article for deletion: (i) without doing a WP:BEFORE, (ii) where abundant SIGCOV is revealed by a simple BEFORE search, (iii) simply because it needs improvement (which would be contrary to both WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:INTROTODELETE). The correct solution in this case would be to tag the article for cleanup, but not to send it to AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Onel5969 that is a thorough misreading of the ANI discussion. Yes, people are telling you to use AfD instead of draftifying. That doesn't absolve you from any of the normal requirements or processes related to AfD. You're gonna have to do some policy and process at some point, sorry. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl62. This is clearly satisfies GNG, and if there was any attempt to WP:BEFORE this, or the number of other articles we've had this same discussion on this week alone, we wouldn't all be here wasting our time. If this is the procedure now, then the procedure is broken. -fuzzy510 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * CommentI believe it should not be allowed to just show sources, but the article should also be expanded in he transcourse of an AfD discussion. While I know that this is currently not the case, I believe this would solve and shorten many AfDsParadise Chronicle (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is simply a massive time waste to nominate articles for deletion where even a cursory BEFORE search discloses that GNG is satisfied. If the goal is cleanup, tag the article with an appropriate cleanup banner. AfD is not a proper procedure to clean up an article that plainly meets our notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats correct too, I firmly believe WP:BEFORE is the correct way to go for normally created articles.
 * (For masscreated ones I'd support a different approach, though, but that's another discussion). Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl62. passes WP:N via WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment three sources picked up above at random, this, this and this are not SIGCOV of the 2022-23 season/team by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not interested on the topic so whatever, but it's seldom a good idea to give the benefit of the doubt to such a volume of sources, especially in sports AfDs. Avilich (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it's seldom a good idea to give the benefit of the doubt to such a volume of sources In the past, sports articles have been damned if editors give too few sources and now, I guess, damned if you give too many. Even if you take issue with the three you highlighted, it's hard to imagine how anyone can argue that this, this, this, and this don't constitute SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No one has ever caused trouble by simply posting the WP:THREE best sources. Again I have no opinion, and you may just as well be right about those and the other sources. Also please be careful when cutting and pasting others' comments. Avilich (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the sloppy cut and paste. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the coverage provided by Cbl62. Note, there are sources with in-depth significant coverage about both the 2022–23 season and team of the Michigan State Spartans women's basketball team, and not just coverage individual games within that season.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2023 (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.