Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:22, 7 October 2021

2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails collegiate sport season notability guideline at WP:NSEASONS and does not meet WP:GNG, with note that some WP:ROUTINE articles exist. Consensus exists for deletion under these circumstances, as demonstrated here, here, and here. GauchoDude (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of them pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – as per nom, prior consensus, and NSEASONS, none of these seasons meet notability guidelines. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. All fail NSEASONS and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, I'm really fed up with these WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominees. Meets GNG as a notable DI soccer program with routine coverage. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This continued accusation that others are acting in bad faith violates WP:AGF. There are perfectly legitimate concerns about the notability of these articles, and continuing to ignore the concerns, especially going as far as calling for a snow keep, is completely absurd. Routine coverage is absolutely insufficient for an article. You should actually engage in the conversation rather than make these accusations. Jay eyem (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No unfounded accusations please. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- - In several of the previous deletion logs, Quidster has made the same arguments that Twwalter has made, and that I have made. I'm assuming it's some fatigue from this debate. Further I think we all remember the 2016 and 2017 season articles that the nominator squarely attacked Quidster, called for him to be banned for making articles about college soccer, and went to the lengths to made sock accounts trying to block him. Cobyan02069 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment from nom: I do not believe I am acting in bad faith as I have serious reservations about keeping these articles, hence the nomination to delete and subsequent discussion, which seems to be echoed by others posting. I will certainly put my hand up and share that I did the same thing probably ~5 years ago, and likely for the same reasons which I'm sure resulted in many deletions. That shouldn't have any impact on this conversation, especially if the inclusion/exclusion criteria have remained the same. Lastly, I don't recall making any sock accounts or attacking @Quidster4040:, but if I did and that's how it was perceived at the time, then for that I am truly sorry. This is by no means a personal attack on him or any of the other fine content creators that have worked so hard on collegiate soccer nor an indication of their work. Ultimately, it appears there is a misunderstanding as to how we as a group are interpreting inclusion criteria specific to NCAA Division I Men's Soccer season articles and thus a conversation is healthy for everyone to level-set and get on the same page. GauchoDude (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unless there is actual evidence of behavior acting as a sock account and calling for a ban by this user, I request that this comment be stricken. That is a very serious accusation and not one to be made lightly. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Michigan State, Rutgers, and Ohio State articles. Delete the Cincinnati and Dayton articles. Refund the 1913 Penn State team.

Rutgers, Michigan State, and Ohio State easily meet WP:NSEASONS due to these three programs being among college soccer's most elite programs, regardless of the success of their season in 2019. Rutgers played the first documented college soccer match ever. Michigan State has two NCAA titles to their name, and Ohio State has recent success in the College Cup and NCAA Sweet Sixteen. I also ask for a refund of the Penn State article, as Penn State's program easily meets WP:NSEASONS for being an elite program in college soccer. During the early to mid-20th century, Penn State won 14 national soccer championships and has made 34 NCAA tournaments. That level of consistency among non-routine coverage easily merits the WP:GNG guidelines for Penn State. Additionally, the same notion applies for Rutgers, Michigan State, and Ohio State. If that level of achievement is not notable, then we should consider deleting all the articles related to Saint Louis, Virginia, and Indiana in soccer, and might as well delete any articles related to Vanderbilt in baseball, Alabama in football, Duke in basketball, etc.

I will, however (reluctantly) agree with the nominator that Cincinnati's 2019 season should be deleted. The program in its history only made the NCAA Tournament three times, the only significant season articles for Cincy that would meet GNG and NSEASONS would be their 1998, 2003, 2006 teams for making the tournament, and the 1989 team for winning a regular season championship. The same logic I would apply for Dayton's 2014 season. The program has only four seasons in the NCAA Tournament and only three seasons where they didn't make the NCAA Tournament but claimed a conference regular season championship. The only Dayton articles I would say meet GNG and NSEASONS are the 1997, 1998, 2000, 2008, 2009, 2015, and 2020 teams.

Finally, I would like to go on record and agree with @Quidster4040: that the Big Ten team deletions feel like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, given the history of attempts to delete college soccer articles that meet GNG, such as 2017 VCU Rams men's soccer team (one of the best A10 teams ever), and the 2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game. Understandably, such a nomination and an attack on Quidster4040 would leave a sour taste in his mouth anytime anyone suggests deleting college soccer articles. I would also like to note all the delete comments by @GiantSnowman:, @No Great Shaker:, and @Keskkonnakaitse:, as they offer nothing of value other than "no evidence of notability". Only @GauchoDude:, the nominator makes a sound argument to delete the articles, although I disagree with his interpretation with WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Twwalter (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2019 NCAA Division I men's soccer season and 2019 Big Ten Conference men's soccer season which provide sufficient coverage of US college football. Notability per WP:NSEASONS does not extend to the individual teams. I would not support any one team season article unless the league is in WP:FPL and, lets face it, these are a long way short of that standard. I could start an article for Bury AFC's record this season (they are tier 10 in England) knowing it wouldn't last two minutes – and that would be absolutely right. But the NWCFL in which Bury play has a much higher standard than a college league in America because, for one thing, the players include many who have been professionals and some have played in the Premier League itself, which means they are rather good. As for IDONTLIKEIT, it seems you two don't like your articles being justifiably raised and criticised at AFD because they don't meet the required standard. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but to compare the 10th tier of English football to the top tier of American collegiate soccer (roughly the fourth tier of American soccer), is frankly laughable and almost strikes me as WP:DIDNOTWIN. For the sake of professionals playing in the American collegiate tiers, it is very routine to have players that play on USL academy contracts and play against professionals in the third and second tier of American soccer and then go on to play college soccer, and then subsequently go on to play in MLS, and elsewhere.

The reason I go through the lengths to call these nominations WP:IDONTLIKEIT is because again and again they routinely ignore WP:NSEASONS as outlined by Twwalter, and regularly ignore non-trivial coverage of these programs. To give one college sport a different set of rules because of a perceived popularity despite coverage that transcends multiple college sports is irresponsible and often comes off as singling out college soccer, which is arguably the second most popular fall college sport, and the third or fourth most popular collegiate sport overall. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comparison between the English 10th tier and American college soccer is erroneous, but I don't see how there is a misinterpretation of WP:NSEASONS here. The reason these seasons are constantly challenged for notability is precisely because they don't have the non-trivial coverage you claim. And NSEASONS is explicit about weigh[ing] both the season itself and the sport i.e. yes, American soccer articles are less likely to be inherently notable so they are held to a slightly higher standard than American football would be. And recall, notability is not inherited, so just because professional players played collegiately does not mean those season articles will be inherently notable. College soccer is not necessarily by any means being singled out, and immediately jumping to accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is assuming bad faith in other editors. Jay eyem (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further down in the discussion, BeanieFan11 makes a sound argument about how these programs easily meet NSEASONS. If it came off as me saying college soccer is inherited notability, my apologies. I was simply trying to say in regards to notable footballers playing in American collegiate soccer that it was, as you said, erroneous, to compare it to the 10th tier of English football, it wasn't meant to be an argument of notability but rather an argument of how the comparison is sheer ignorance. But finally, the goalposts (no pun intended) oftentimes are moved when it comes to notability of college soccer. Someone makes a nomination, we find sources proving that there is notability. It gets deleted, despite there not being a delete consensus and then animosity forms, and those such actions trigger a sense of deleting not due to notability, but due to not liking the subject matter. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I vehemently disagree that any of the proposed teams would meet the criteria of "elite" teams. The only college team I think that comes close would be Indiana, and I haven't seen the level of coverage where I would consider the team elite. WP:NSEASONS says to balance both the sport and the season; the reason that men's basketball or football seasons would be considered more likely to be notable is because they receive substantially more coverage, and are more notable as a result. NSEASONS also says that it is a wholly appropriate alternative to aggregate season results in a single article, such as on the team's page, if individual seasons do not meet WP:GNG, so not too much information is being lost. It should also be noted that both individuals here arguing to keep are not assuming good faith of their fellow editors; there have long been concerns about the notability of college soccer seasons, and the line we have traditionally drawn is if they qualify for the NCAA tournament. That's arbitrary, of course. Seasons ultimately still need to have significant coverage and meet WP:GNG. And the fact is that most do not meet that bar, and don't need to have articles. I believe this applies to all of the articles listed at this AFD. Jay eyem (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Michigan State, but redirect the other articles to their respective team articles. I agree with @Jay eyem: about Rutgers and Ohio State not meeting WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG for their seasons; however, I agree with @Twwalter: about Michigan State being elite enough of a program to retain an article, and I agree about refunding Penn State. Ohio State and Rutgers frankly do not have as extensive of a soccer history or prestige to merit their own articles for each season, even if Rutgers has one of the oldest collegiate soccer program in the U.S. Ohio State is a very notable institution, but its soccer team does not have the elite status as say, its football team does. Michigan State on the other hand, I would argue does. Multiple national championships, routine appearances in NCAA Tournament, and routine coverage that, to me, meets GNG and NSEASONS. Penn State's soccer history is rich and there are a wealth of publications, journals, news articles, etc. that have gone in depth covering the Penn State team, but I would rather make that a different discussion as to not to veer off topic. Finally, I don't think these articles are being nominated in bad faith. Although there is a history of college soccer articles in the past being proposed for deletion in the past in bad faith which makes me understand why @Quidster4040: might get frustrated anytime a CSOC article gets proposed for deletion, I do not believe these articles were nominated out of bad faith or out of spite of Quidster (if it was/is, I would be gravely concerned about how we perceive CSOC articles). That said, I believe the season terms are notable enough to search but do not contain a sufficient enough of information necessitate a standalone article, hence why I would suggest a redirect/merge instead of a deletion. Cobyan02069 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a disagreement about what one would consider "elite" by the standards of WP:NSEASONS. To me when I read "(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)", this implies coverage that is well beyond routine. I don't think it is a coincidence that the examples given are football, men's basketball, and women's basketball, because these are the three sports that easily exceed the kind of routine coverage something like college soccer would receive for those given programs. That's also why the guideline says "For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)." I just don't see this kind of coverage for any men's soccer teams, including Indiana who is one of the most successful programs and has far and away the longest streak of consecutively making the tournament. I don't feel I can speak to the proposal for refunding the Penn State article (although I will say I don't think this AFD is the place for it) because that season does go so far back and determining significant coverage for something that far back is not as easy. But by the standards of NSEASONS, I think "elite" status is more than a team being historically good in their given sport; it's also about the amount of coverage that team receives from non-routine sources. This might just be worth taking up at WT:NSPORT, but if the coverage for these seasons is there, I haven't yet found it. Jay eyem (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: These are my thoughts exactly. GauchoDude (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ohio State, need to search for the others. Did you even search? I did a google search for OSU and found this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. And though its routine coverage, routine coverage for season articles are acceptable, see in college football seasons. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rutgers, a search found this, this, this, this, this, this, this and more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michigan State, a search found this, this, this, this, this, and more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Cincinnati, only found this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Dayton, only found this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would support refunding the Penn State team, as they're a major program and a search on newspapers.com for 1913 brings up 2,000+ results. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: I do not think these group deletion discussions are appropriate, as 1. Each are completely different schools/teams being nominated as a group & 2. It appears few people are doing the simple research that I did to find coverage. See the first 4 delete votes, all of which said something like "Fails NSEASONS and GNG". But it appeared nobody actually searched for the things I found. I also really do not like how GauchoDude a month ago randomly deleted/redirected over 50 soccer seasons to the main article, citing "per NSEASONS". Well, while I can see NSEASONS saying "redirect if no well sourced prose is found", 1. over 10,000 articles (mostly football and basketball) do not follow this, yet still remain, and 2. he still redirected some articles even though they were not just lists of players and statistics. I mean does this look like a list of stats and players??? At least bring it to AFD (individually, I would prefer), rather than delete large amounts of hard work by college soccer users without anyone else knowing. For Penn State, which he redirected around 15 seasons pre-1940 for, a search on newspapers.com of "Penn State soccer" brings up every year between 1,000 and 7,000 results! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has been discussed extensively in the past, routine coverage is NOT sufficient for an article. Regular match scores and reports constitute routine coverage, and you can't synthesize as string of routine coverage together and claim notability. And you absolutely cannot claim that these articles meet notability just because other similar articles exist. Many of those articles could also probably be deleted on basis of failing WP:GNG as well, but WP:NSEASONS is the baseline for notability. Can you provide in-depth coverage of the entire season by an independent and reliable source? Because so far you have not provided such. Jay eyem (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How come for college football and basketball, articles exist when they only have routine coverage, but its not the case for soccer? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally already directed you to WP:OSE, that's a facile argument for keeping an article. That being said, WP:NSEASONS is explicit about balancing the sport and the season. Football and basketball articles receive far more significant and in-depth coverage, so they are more likely to be notable. Jay eyem (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested additional input at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). I feel that this discussion has largely reached an impasse or is rehashing arguments made in older discussion and would like additional voices in the conversation. Jay eyem (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Seems like a pretty straightforward application of WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. College soccer is a niche category of a niche sport, and we're talking about seasons with very little of note, if any, which is probably why I'm not seeing any non-WP:ROUTINE sourcing. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If I'm reading WP:NSEASONS correctly, none of these articles would have presumed notability as they aren't a national championship season at the top collegiate level. I'm no expert in college soccer bu none of them appear to pass WP:GNG either. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 :::The reason I go through the lengths to call these nominations [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is because again and again they routinely ignore [[WP:NSEASONS]] as outlined by [[User:Twwalter|Twwalter]], and regularly ignore non-trivial coverage of these programs. To give one college sport a different set of rules because of a perceived popularity despite coverage that transcends multiple college sports is irresponsible and often comes off as singling out college soccer, which is arguably the second most popular fall college sport, and the third or fourth most popular collegiate sport overall. [[User:Quidster4040|Quidster4040]] ([[User talk:Quidster4040|talk]]) 16:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 :::*I agree that the comparison between the English 10th tier and American college soccer is erroneous, but I don't see how there is a misinterpretation of [[WP:NSEASONS]] here. The reason these seasons are constantly challenged for notability is ''precisely because they don't have'' the non-trivial coverage you claim. And NSEASONS is explicit about {{xt|weigh[ing] both the season itself and the sport}} i.e. yes, American soccer articles are less likely to be inherently notable  so they are held to a slightly higher standard than American football would be. And recall, [[WP:INHERIT|notability is not inherited]], so just because professional players played collegiately does not mean those season articles will be inherently notable. College soccer is not necessarily by any means being singled out, and immediately jumping to accusations of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is assuming bad faith in other editors. [[User:Jay eyem|Jay eyem]] ([[User talk:Jay eyem|talk]]) 19:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
+:::: Further down in the discussion, [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] makes a sound argument about how these programs easily meet NSEASONS. If it came off as me saying college soccer is [[WP:INHERIT|inherited]] notability, my apologies. I was simply trying to say in regards to notable footballers playing in American collegiate soccer that it was, as you said, erroneous, to compare it to the 10th tier of English football, it wasn't meant to be an argument of notability but rather an argument of how the comparison is sheer ignorance. But finally, the goalposts (no pun intended) oftentimes are moved when it comes to notability of college soccer. Someone makes a nomination, we find sources proving that there is notability. It gets deleted, despite there [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season|not being a delete consensus]] and then [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game|animosity forms]], and those such actions trigger a sense of deleting not due to [[WP:GNG|notability]], but due to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VCU Rams men's soccer, 1978–89|not liking]] the subject matter. [[User:Quidster4040|Quidster4040]] ([[User talk:Quidster4040|talk]]) 18:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Delete all''' - I vehemently disagree that any of the proposed teams would meet the criteria of "elite" teams. The only college team I think that comes close would be Indiana, and I haven't seen the level of coverage where I would consider the team elite. [[WP:NSEASONS]] says to balance both the sport and the season; the reason that men's basketball or football seasons would be considered more likely to be notable is because they receive substantially more coverage, and are more notable as a result. NSEASONS also says that it is a wholly appropriate alternative to aggregate season results in a single article, such as on the team's page, if individual seasons do not meet [[WP:GNG]], so not too much information is being lost. It should also be noted that both individuals here arguing to keep are not [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] of their fellow editors; there have long been concerns about the notability of college soccer seasons, and the line we have traditionally drawn is if they qualify for the NCAA tournament. That's arbitrary, of course. Seasons ultimately still need to have [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] and meet [[WP:GNG]]. And the fact is that most do not meet that bar, and don't need to have articles. I believe this applies to all of the articles listed at this AFD. [[User:Jay eyem|Jay eyem]] ([[User talk:Jay eyem|talk]]) 05:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' Michigan State, but '''redirect the other articles''' to their respective team articles. I agree with {{ping|Jay eyem}} about Rutgers and Ohio State not meeting [[WP:NSEASONS]] and [[WP:GNG]] for their seasons; however, I agree with {{ping|Twwalter}} about Michigan State being elite enough of a program to retain an article, and I agree about '''refunding''' Penn State. Ohio State and Rutgers frankly do not have as extensive of a soccer history or prestige to merit their own articles for each season, even if Rutgers has one of the oldest collegiate soccer program in the U.S. Ohio State is a very notable institution, but its soccer team does not have the elite status as say, its football team does. Michigan State on the other hand, I would argue does. Multiple national championships, routine appearances in NCAA Tournament, and routine coverage that, to me, meets GNG and NSEASONS. Penn State's soccer history is rich and there are a wealth of publications, journals, news articles, etc. that have gone in depth covering the Penn State team, but I would rather make that a different discussion as to not to veer off topic. Finally, I don't think these articles are being nominated in [[WP:AGF|bad faith]]. Although there is a history of college soccer articles in the past being proposed for deletion in the past in bad faith which makes me understand why {{ping|Quidster4040}} might get frustrated anytime a CSOC article gets proposed for deletion, I do not believe these articles were nominated out of bad faith or out of spite of Quidster (if it was/is, I would be gravely concerned about how we perceive CSOC articles). That said, I believe the season terms are notable enough to search but do not contain a sufficient enough of information necessitate a standalone article, hence why I would suggest a redirect/merge instead of a deletion. [[User:Cobyan02069|Cobyan02069]] ([[User talk:Cobyan02069|talk]]) 14:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)