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 redirect to South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer. A plausible search term given that it is an NCAA Division 1 program. However, sole keep vote is erroneous, as this season satisfies none of the criteria suggested for college programs Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer team[edit]

2014 South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested WP:PROD by IP user. The user added one WP:PRIMARY source in an effort "...to validify article". Article still makes no claim to notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, and similar articles have been deleted before (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team. GauchoDude (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability and there is prior consensus supporting the deletion of these kind of articles as not inherently notable. GiantSnowman 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer - fails WP:NSEASONS as mentioned above, but the same policy says that in such cases, the page should ideally be redirected to the main article if it exists rather than being deleted outright. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per Smartyllama's comment, although a delete could also be appropriate. Lacks the coverage to stand as an independent article. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think this fails WP:NSEASONS, it's a Division I NCAA program, that's the pinnacle of college soccer in the U.S. There are plenty of Division I football season articles, I think the same logic would exist here. If there's an issue with a lack of content, that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 1 March 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.