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 speedy keep. Clearly notable game from the sourcing in the article per GNG and the most important soccer match at college level in the US in general. Also obvious bad faith nomination. Fenix down (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game[edit]

2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game Stats)

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

The article fails WP:GNG as college soccer is not notable, and there are no third party sources used in the article unless doing WP:OR, which violated the rules. It looks like User:Quidster4040 is violating the rules and did original research and needs to be punished for making a useless article about a tournament that no one cares about. GLenhart1 (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

2015 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Speedy keep Just so everyone knows, GLenhart made a bad faith nomination the other day to purge over 75 college basketball season articles, if you look into it, his history reeks of WP:VNDL, and this nomination, as evidence by his "Quidster4040 needs to be punished" and calling the article "useless" and that "no one cares about" is WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA. That being said, I'm failing to see where GLenhart1 is saying there is no third party coverage. College Cup generates about 276,000 Google News results, and if we are looking at the citations, there is third party coverage from the Winston-Salem Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Edwardsville Intelligencer, The Sun News, etc. Hell the match itself was coverage by ESPN and aired on ESPN. Finally, I don't see any original research on this article. If anything, it's a very well-sourced article, and probably good enough to meet WP:GOOD. Admins, can we please shut down GLenhart1's account? Twwalter (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I do not think this nomination was made in good faith. The claim of "no third party sources" is simply not true. A quick search turns up several sources: [1] [2] [3]. Also, I see no evidence of original research in the article; almost every statement is traceable back to a source.

I am also very worried about the language GLenhart1 used when nominating this article. Articles for deletion is not a "punishment"; GLenhart1's use of that term makes me think that there may be an ulterior motive here. Also there are issues with sockpuppetry by GLenhart1, as Glenhart2 there shows. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep by someone able to go through the nominator's recent contributions and reverse all the bad-faith changes, AfD nominations, sockpuppetry and other nonsense from this Bad Faith editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to their respective 2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship and 2015 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship articles. Good information here, but borderline as to if they're deserving of a standalone article outside the already existing tournament pages. I'd also like to go on record in that Nom's comments about User:Quidster4040 are off base and uncalled for. GauchoDude (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep on a bad faith nomination made by an editor who is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (eye roll), also I see that the nominator created an account masquerade as me 1. Quidster4040 (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article, and banish the nominator for reasons previously stated by others, above... GWFrog (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - partly because of bad faith nomination, partly because articles appear to meet WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:28, 19 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.