Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook
College yearbookof unclear notability. A notability tag was removed without comment, hence I initiated the more formal AfD process. Chris 73 | Talk 17:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep revised version, notable and now also NPOV -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think it's probably notable, but it's also probably spam. Reads like a cut-and-paste of their promotional materials. I'll change if it's rewritten and sourced at the end of the discussion period. Change to keep. Good job. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)(timestamp last ... Bpmullins | Talk 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 03:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Weak keep The yearbook is pretty notable in college basketball circles. Using Factiva, I found 232 newspaper articles referencing the guide, including 26 that mention the title of the book in their headlines or lead paragraphs.  At least 99 libraries carry the yearbooks, as well (according to WorldCat).  The article is kind of spammy, but it doesn't appear to be a straight cut-and-paste job.  Just tag it for cleanup; maybe I'll get to it later. Zagalejo 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Potentially notable, but no attempt at verifiability at all. Perhaps it can be cited, but someone needs to do it before this AfD closes. If the article can't be updated within a week to add references, it's not being maintained enough to be worth keeping. -- Kesh 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - With the current references, I'm revising my vote to Keep. Good job tagging and cleaning it up! Hopefully more information can be added later to expand this article. It'd be good to see a History section about where it came from, and why it's referred to as the "Bible" for basketball. -- Kesh
 * Comment I just turned it into a stub, removing the promotional language and adding a few references. I'm sure it can be expanded further, but I have other things I should be doing right now.  Anyone else want to take a crack at it? Zagalejo 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The newly revised and reformatted version is a keeper although the original was not necessarily so. This is used as a resource across the country as is easily seen by the references. TonyTheTiger 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This new version meets verifiability and notability standards. Good job, Zagalego. --The Way 00:17, 21 January 2007 (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.