Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal State Fullerton Titans women's basketball


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Cal State Fullerton Titans women's basketball

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was tagged as needing secondary sources after 6 weeks nothing was added I then Prodded it as I could find nothing over and above routine coverage it was unprodded with the comment "Does need independent sources, but really no question to me that the subject meets WP:GNG" but no sources were added to support this statement. Unfortunately all that is left is to propose the article for deletion. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Domdeparis (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Deletion is never an alternative to cleanup, which IMO may not even be necessary as a Division I collegiate team should be considered de facto notable. Hell they were national champions in 1970. A rather poorly-concocted nomination, sorry to say. ValarianB (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with ValarianB. Just being a Division I basketball team makes them, in my opinion, pretty notable. The article certainly could use some work, but that doesn't make it any less notable. bojo  &#124;  talk  13:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Clean-up is different to proving notability. Notability is not inherent it has to be proved and there are no rules stating that all Div 1 teams are inherently notable or presumed notable. WP:NORG applies to sporting teams and there is no independent coverage in-depth or otherwise. If you can find me any policy rules that support what you are both implying when you say "in my opinion" I will happily retract the nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – I de-prodded the article. Because generally, every game, every roster move and every storyline gets covered for D1 programs, which is a pretty good indicator of GNG. I haven't had time to research yet, but if this case is the exception I will be happy to vote "delete." But in either case, this subject absolutely deserves a discussion rather than just fading away because no one noticed a PROD. Rikster2 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand the logic but knowing that a PROD is on for a week IMHO it would have been better to look for the sources before deprodding it is the 4th suggested action in WP:DEPROD. Before PRODDING it I tagged it and edits were made after the tag but 6 weeks later still no external sources to prove notability so I tried to find independent in-depth coverage myself to try and improve the article and nothing came up, as you said there may be stuff out there so I prodded it rather than Afd to give more time to address the problem. As there are no specific guidelines for teams they have to meet WP:NORG and as it is this page doesn't so even if ValarianB thinks it was a poorly concocted nomination I don't agree with him (obviously) and he may want to actually read and address the point about the notability and find the sources necessary. Domdeparis (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, well I disagree and it is good that we can ensure we will have an AfD discussion. Mind you, I wasn't even required to give a reason for removing the PROD. That method is for non-controversial nominations - I don't believe this qualifies. Rikster2 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it would be controversial as the article clearly doesn't meet GNG or NORG...my bad and as I mentioned addressing the problem cited is a suggested action but it would have avoided an Afd discussion though.Domdeparis (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Article could use expansion and additional references, not deletion per WP:ATD. I've added a few from The Orange County Register to get started. Meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ATD. Needs work, though.   Montanabw (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Division I basketball teams are notable, and in any case, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 20:14, 16 April 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.