- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Fenix down closed the discussion the day after it was relisted "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus", when no one had yet commented. He also closed it on the basis that "Claims below that the articles pass WP:NSEASONS are erroneous" when no one mentioned that in the debate. No one said it passed WP:NSEASONS either, if you read the wording closely. I'd suggest Feix down either comment on the open debate, and we have a discussion, or marks it as no consensus. The same can easily be said for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As the closing admin, please see the detailed closure rationales I provided both here and here. However, I will deal with specific points here:
- Relisting does not guarantee a specific additional length of time for discussion, had I looked at either AfD prior to the previous admin extending, I would have closed with the same rationale.
- AfD is not a vote. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).
- It is clear from both instances that the claims that both series of articles fail WP:NSEASONS and WP:EVENT, and hence WP:GNG are correct and no significant rebuttal was put forth. I outlined this clearly in my closing rationale but will go into more detail here
- NSEASONS failure. There are five criteria by which an individual college season may be notable per NSEASONS:
- A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable: In none of these seasons did either program participate, let alone win in the NCAA Div I championship
- A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable: these programs are NCAA Div I, so this is not relevent
- A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.: In none of these seasons did either program qualify for the NCAA Div 1 Championship
- For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g. Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline): Neither program is included in this listing, the fact that in none of the seasons up for discussion did either program reach the NCAA Div I championship indicates that there is no merit in claiming that they should be.
- In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article: this is not a relevant argument for the keeping of individual season articles
- It is clear then that all articles fail NSEASONS.
- The other argument put forward was that they pass WP:EVENT. Firstly it is questionable whether a sporting season can be considered an event. Let us assume that it can for arguments sake. In every instance then articles must satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT, essentially satisfying GNG. In no instance did an article contain any sourcing that was not drawn directly from primary sources, either the college themselves, or the conference. No indication was given in any article or either AfD that any season had gained significant, reliable coverage in independent sources. There is therefore nothing to indicate passing wP:EVENT and therefore nothing to indicate passing WP:GNG.
- It should also be noted that this was only brought here after I, observed the correct course of action to the editor above and had had cause to CSD a number of immediate recreations. Fenix down (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The link above doesn't go anywhere. Will the nominator please fix the malformed listing or indicate which precise decision is being challenged?
Note that per WP:RELIST a relisted discussion may be closed as soon as there is consensus rather than waiting an extra 7 days. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have linked to both discussions in my explanation of my actions. I will leave it to the nominator to fix their own errors. Fenix down (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - as someone who !voted 'delete' in the original discussion, there is no argument for keeping these than WP:ILIKEIT and the close was good. GiantSnowman 18:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - As explained above, the procedural argument is clearly without merit. Given that WP:NSEASON is the applicable guideline here, I find no fault the close rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per the explanation provided here by the closing admin. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist both this and the VCU Rams AfD. The closing admin should interpret existing consensus in the discussion. If the consensus is not clear, the proper thing to do is cast a !vote, not shut down the discussion. Even if the closing admin throws out all the keep !votes (which he did), there is hardly a clear consensus for deletion in either AfD and there was no reason to shut down the VCU Rams discussion shortly after it had been relisted for the first time. Lepricavark (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist both America East, Big West and VCU: WP:NSEASONS works both ways, and I think there is a legitimate arguments that VCU could be a program "considered elite in a sport". This is obviously subjective, but in my eyes, a team that has made a deep run before, and is regularly ranked, as well as a team that has produced professionals, which VCU's program meets – is enough to be considered "elite" in the sport. Also seasons where a team is ranked can meet WP:SEASONS. These arguments were discussed and brought up, but not only ignored, quickly thrown aside. Furthermore the America East and Big West seasons had ranked teams that had "elite" seasons and had teams make the NCAA Tournament, a postseason tournament which meets WP:GNG and
WP:SEASONS WP:NSEASON. Twwalter (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Twwalter: WP:NSEASONS gives specific examples of elite programs in a specific sport. Each example listed has multiple Division I national championships, the lowest total being the Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team with 3. All of these programs have had a prolonged history of excellence. As such in my opinion, VCU Rams men's soccer does not nearly qualify as "elite" by those parameters / examples as they've appeared just 4 times in their history past the 1st round of their NCAA competition and have never made the Final Four. To your point, it is to an extent subjective, but it becomes much more clear when compared to the examples given. GauchoDude (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist I am also concerned that the discussion was closed based on arguments made by the closing admin, that weren't discussed in the AFD. Closing Admin should have commented in the discussion, and left a non-involved admin to close. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, the Keep !votes in the first AfD were completely irrelevant to policy, the second one I would have closed as Redirect but in any event that means they don't remain as stand-alone articles. WP:NSEASON is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it is clear to me that @Fenix down: is misinterpreting WP:NSEASONS per the explanations and the notability criteria provided by @Twwalter:, and is incorrectly interpreting a consensus for deletion per @Nfitz: and @Lepricavark:. Quidster4040 (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Quidster4040:, I don't think that's fair to blanket Fenix down as misinterpreting, more so just a mere disagreement. Fenix has a fair rationale on WP:NSEASON, but can be interpreted differently, like myself. Neither of us are incorrect or necessarily correct. There's fair argument on both ends, so I think it's totally fair game to reopen the discussion as there is no consensus. Twwalter (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There are two arguments presented here for overturning the close, and both are erroneous. The first revolves around the timing of the close giving the relists, however both discussions had been open for well over the minimum required amount of time, and there is no minimum amount of time a discussion must remain open after a relist. To be honest, the closer deserves a barnstar for decisively ending the discussion rather than letting the can be kicked down the road as is a depressingly common outcome these days. The second argument revolves around an interpretation of WP:NSEASONS, but I don't see Fenix down's call as being contentious or indefensible enough to justify overturning. Other "Keep" arguments in the original discussions were not based on policy and were correctly disregarded. These were "brave" closes, but also quite well within the administrator's discretion to make. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse- Reasonable close based on policy and weight of argument. Reyk YO! 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: Per the policy in place, a legitimate close. I commend Fenix down for judging based on strength of argument and policy. GauchoDude (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist: Per Twwalter. Cobyan02069 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and barnstar. Correct and courageous close, weighting arguments appropriately by how much they were based in policy. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse correct close. and I amglad to havethe opportuity of completely agreeing with Stifle here.... DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Fenix down made the correct choice to close and followed the policy correctly. Spiderone 14:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
