Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain West Conference and Conference USA football alliance


 * 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   delete. I'll userfy on request or restore when the event has happened. v/r - TP 03:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mountain West Conference and Conference USA football alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It seems a bit early to have a page for a "conference" that only exists informally. It would probably be more appropriate to put information in this article into the separate Mountain West Conference and Conference USA articles, until this conference is officially recognized by the NCAA. While a Google search brings up a number of sources that comment on this topic, they all pretty much say the same thing: "The conferences will merge, no other details are available". This article basically takes that single sentence worth of information and adds a little bit of information from the MWC & C-USA articles. So it adds very little to what is already in those two articles, and I don't think that makes it notable enough to warrant its own article. At least not yet. Bmf 51 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 9.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy and Delete hey, this is PROBABLY going to happen for sure and I'd hate to lose the preliminary work. But it's a bit premature to launch the article.  Roll it out back when it's official works for me.  (Unless, of course, I was asleep and it became official, then it's a keeper).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As to whether it's official, it depends on whether you consider a press release making it official. I would say no. The NCAA has to approve new conferences. So this would be like making an article for the AT&T and T-Mobile merger when it was announced, despite the FCC fighting it. Also, I think that the mere fact that 5 of the teams who originally approved the merger have already left their respective conferences, and that others are actively seeking to change conference affiliations (Air Force, for one) makes this all a little premature. Bmf 51 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just premature at this time. WP:CRYSTAL. Need something more. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Bmf 51 in putting the information in the C-USA and MWC articles. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not believe the article is premature. Sure it has not officially happened yet, but it is officially in the works as shown by reliable sources. It's like having an article on a movie that is in the works but not officially released yet. It's possible the movie will never be finished and released. This is a current topic that readers are looking for information on now and it therefore needs to have an article now. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is less like having an article about a movie "in the works" and more like having an article about a movie that a director has expressed interest in making, but that doesn't have a cast, script, or release date. Ghostbusters 3 is such a movie, but does it have its own article? No. It is mentioned in the main article for the franchise, the same way this merger should only be mentioned in the main articles for the MWC and C-USA. In this analogy, this new conference's "cast" is its line-up of teams, and its "release date" is the season where all of this merging is going to take place. Neither of these are anywhere close to being finalized, and any guessing about either of these is speculation (WP:CRYSTAL). And unlike the aforementioned movie, this conference doesn't even have a working title. It's definitely premature. Bmf 51 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Rreagan007. This should be kept. Rick lay95 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)rick_lay95
 * 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.