THC Science

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. Although there are a number of keep votes, they all rely on erroneous rationales. Those which rely on WP:NSEASONS are unsatisfactory since that guideline requires the team to have qualified at a minimum for the NCAA I Championship. In none of the seasons up for discussion did this team qualify. Those which rely on WP:EVENT are also unsatisfactory given that there is essentially no sourcing in any of these articles which is not clearly primary, even in the couple of articles which contain sufficient sourced prose to not be immediate WP:NOTSTATS failures. The simple fact of the matter here is that the initial arguments are robust and have not been rebutted in any way. There is no evidence that any of these seasons have received sufficient significant reliable independent coverage as a subject rather than a synthesis of match reports to satisfy wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article currently being used as sports seasons as can be seen at VCU Rams men's soccer#Seasons as well as Template:VCU Rams men's soccer. Per WP:NSEASONS, none of the criteria are met to have a stand-alone article and should be deleted as a result. GauchoDude (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

– GauchoDude (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons in addition to WP:CRYSTALBALL:

– GauchoDude (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VCU Rams men's soccer, until there is a valid amount of information to allow it to be standalone. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there appear to mistakenly be articles on all the seasons instead of only 1978. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no mistaking as I was mid-bundling. All of the articles listed above are under the same consideration for the same reasoning. Thanks, GauchoDude (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Speedy Keep 2001, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Both meet WP:SEASONS and WP:EVENT. It's almost laughable to see an issue in those articles are they are well developed, based on the main article and are well-sourced. Additionally, you need to specify sooner in advance then. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fear you must be mistaken, WP:SEASONS is a task force for WikiProject Football whereas WP:NSEASONS is the notability guideline for sporting seasons. Please review the requirements for NSEASONS and share which you feel would best apply. Regardless of how "well developed" you feel the articles are, ultimately the WP:AMOUNT and quality of content is irrelevant if the stand-alone article doesn't merit existence in the first place per the guidelines above. Upon review, when references and citations even exist, it all looks to be WP:ROUTINE and very WP:PRIMARY in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I see no violations. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the ones Quidster4040 mentioned, redirect others. The well-developed ones should be kept per WP:NSEASONS, and nominator shouldn't be seizing on an apparent mistaken link to discredit another user. Assume good faith, people. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Smartyllama: With "well-developed" not being an inclusion criteria per WP:NSEASONS, but instead a baseline-minimum of the articles that do qualify under the guidelines listed, please share why you believe those should be speedy kept. For me, as NSEASONS states, collegiate athletics must either win a national championship (generally for all levels) or make the post-season in a top collegiate level. I think (hope?) we can agree that collegiate DI soccer qualifies as a top collegiate level, however the VCU season articles above did not see the team participate in the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship (which is also why I specifically didn't include 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012, nor 2013 in which they did appear) and thus don't qualify under any of the inclusion criteria. Thoughts? GauchoDude (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean he's wrong in thought. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no need for individual season articles for college soccer. Merge any notable info back to main article. GiantSnowman 08:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That would make the article size way to big, and you have provided no reason why college soccer articles are illegitimate. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the recent season articles per Smartyllama. Also, I find it preposterous that the 2017 article is being nominated per CRYSTALBALL. Unless the nom intends to nominate for deletion every single article in every sport about a 2017 team season, that rationale should be removed from the nomination. Lepricavark (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Sativa

1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team[edit]

Leave a Reply