Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Basketball Team of the Century


 * 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 merge to Bradley Braves men's basketball. Topic is not notable for a standalone page. Be careful when merging due to concerns raised about existing copyright violations. —Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradley Basketball Team of the Century

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nearly every major college (350+ at the top division) have an all-century team - these aren’t notable enough for stand-alone article and generally are only covered by the school and the local media, not sufficient for WP:GNG. I suggest the content be merged into Bradley Braves men's basketball and the stand-alone be deleted. Rikster2 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge list into Bradley Braves men's basketball but omit or rewrite prose: It's a potential copyright violation because of close paraphrasing from page 11 of the Bradley Men's Basketball Record Book (unknown author but obviously post-1991, so copyrighted). This topic on its own doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV: Every source seems to be a work of Bradley University.  (The article from CSNTV is actually from the Bradley Scout student newspaper.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge until a new page is properly written. This one appears clumsyMgbo120 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would argue that cleanup isn't the biggest problem. This honor doesn't meet notability standards, in my opinion. Not sufficient independent coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 20:53, 11 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.