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. MBisanz talk 03:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 USC Trojans football team[edit]

2016 USC Trojans football 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)

Premature creation of college football team season article for 2016 college football season. Based on WP:CRYSTAL and previous AfD precedents regarding future sports seasons, we do not create future season articles before the current season is over. This article is premature by eight months or more per WP:TOOSOON, and there is no way to properly source it per WP:RS 16 months before the 2016 season starts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I got to laugh. There's enormous quantities of news articles about high profile programs and their recruiting classes. In this specific case, I found 18 THOUSAND news articles about it. You can't dismiss that as being from "blogs". Hell, one program created buzz when they recruited someone out of 8th grade. This stuff is major, major stuff in the news and directly relates to the programs recruiting them. But, for bureaucratic...rather than encyclopedic reasons..(not directing this at you Paul in particular)..we can't have an article about. Utter <facepalm> if I ever saw one. Might as well snow-close this AfD under the heading "Napoleon was right" ("the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy). One question, since I couldn't find it, where is it written in law around here that an article about this team (which WILL exist...there's nothing crystal ball about that) can't exist for another eight months? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then don't laugh. Show the sources you found and we will consider them. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. As of now, I do not doubt that there are thousands of entries on the internet about the class. I question that they are from both reliable and third party sources. As for the question when a subject achieves notability to deserve an article, see WP:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been here long enough to know about WP:N, as I haven't hit 50,000 edits yet and can't even be trusted to edit templates. So, you'll have to forgive me for being so clueless ;) I joke, but anyway... As to sources; I already linked to the Google news search showing more than 18,000 articles relating to this class. Even if only 1% of those qualify under your criteria, that's still 180 articles supporting an article about this future team. There's oodles of information to work with here. But, I guarantee that even if I did develop this article with all that material it would be deleted anyway, for purely bureaucratic reasons. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of edits has no bearing on the weight of the argument being made. I don't care if anyone has zero edits--if they have an opinion, they get to express it. And they may be right. But what I don't see are three or four specific references that you believe are good examples to showcase the notability of the subject. The "news" link above is a good start, but the first few that I read through either were not bona fide news sources (i.e. fan blogs), not third party (i.e. USC Football), or not about the 2016 USC program (they happened to have "USC" and "2016" in the article). Give us specific examples. Like this.
  • Thanks for posting. Each of those to me do not qualify. Bleacher Reports and isportsweb.com are considered by many to not qualify as reliable sources--at least for the purposes of determining notability. Because of the open-source nature of their editing and information coupled with the distinct lack of peer review, the websites in question are normally not considered for determining notability. Naturally, you can argue that point (for example, if Lou Holtz were to write such an article it would have more weight). The other sites you provided (Yahoo Sports and ESPN) certainly qualify as reliable third party sources, but what you provide is simply a table and not an article. Such a table would be suitable for including supplemental data as a reference in this article or for "College Football Recruiting Class of 2016" (covering all teams), but it does not establish notability for this particular topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The examples you provided are the sort of Bleacher Report pieces and Rivals rankings that exist for every major team's future recruiting classes. If those types of pieces were enough, sports fans would be free to create articles 2 or maybe even 3 years in advance for every major college team. Those articles would be completely devoid of meaningful information, and would consist of nothing more than repetition of subjective opinions and predictions by various sources about the potential future value of high school football players who have not yet even signed binding commitments to attend the university in question. You can call it "bureaucracy", but I consider the current practice to be sound management developed based on the consensus of editors who routinely edit and develop college sports articles. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <shaking my head> Ah, Wikipedia, what have ye become? Enormous amounts of press can be generated about something, yet for bureaucratic reasons here we can't talk about them. Wikipedia, the world's resource for free knowledge, can't report on known facts and realities. Commits? They don't exist. National rankings of an incoming class, even in the top 10? Nope, not notable. ESPN isn't a reliable source, bleacherreport.com (a top 100 site in the U.S.) discusses the class and that's not acceptable, etc. Nah, nothing's acceptable. At least, not until Wikipedia declares, by a date which apparently isn't written into policy/guideline anywhere, that we can't create an article about it. Even with tons of press about this class, we can't write about it because of an arbitrary, unwritten date at some time in the future. This is nuts. Absolutely nuts. You guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Go ahead and delete. The bureaucracy has won. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think you are mis-understanding. ESPN is a reliable source, it's just that the article you provided does not speak to the notability of the subject. And that's just my opinion. As to Bleacherreport, that's not a peer-reviewed reliable source no matter how many articles they print so it doesn't qualify for establishing notability. Again, that's my opinion. As for "enormous amounts of press" I just haven't seen it in reliable third party sources. But even then, this is an encyclopedia, not a news source per WP:NOTNEWS. Have you tried Wikinews or another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment you're welcome to change your position for any reason you choose. I hope that you would not simply because we disagree on a subject. It's not about winning or losing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please. Look, the reality is the bureaucracy isn't going to allow this article, despite ample, reliable sources. So many of you are saying "too soon". Yet, not a single one of you has been able to point to any policy that says this article can't exist until xyz date. I wish you could see yourselves in the mirror. But, alas. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • THANK YOU! You've just proved my point about bureaucracy. Even if we had 1,000,000 articles from every news outlet in the world the bureaucracy wouldn't allow an article about this team until we reach some arbitrary date. We even have verifiable information regarding a portion of their schedule [2] (but the bureaucracy will probably cry WP:PRIMARY). But no, can't have an article. News keeps rolling in about their incoming class [3], and we can't discuss it here because of an arbitrary date. Yahoo! can have a list of their recruiting class [4], but not us. Oh no! It's too EARLY! The program lands fifth ranked linebacker in the country, but oh no! We have to wait, because that's not notable. Source after source after source after source is discussing this team and its upcoming members, but the bureaucracy here stands in the way. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've complained that there aren't any guidelines that support the position of deletion, I point them out, and you then complain about too many guidelines. Which is it? Not enough or too many? And we don't have a million articles from every news outlet in the world. You have shown, in fact, none that meet the notability, reliable source, and third party standards. Now your comments are starting to become disruptive in nature. And finally, no one is saying it can't be discussed here. HERE is exactly the place to discuss it. "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" is not a valid argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked for a place in policy dictating that the article can't exist until a xyz date. What I got was a wall of links to essays, guidelines and policies...none of which indicate that an article about this team can not exist now. So, as of this writing, there is still no presentation that this article can not exist because of some arbitrary date not having been reached yet. I'm waiting. Maybe I'll have to wait until the arbitrary date (whatever it is; no one seems to know) is passed :) You claim that none of the links I have provided pass established standards. Yet, I've linked to plenty of news sources from third party sources that are reliable sources of news. But, I guess Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, Sports Illustrated and Bleacher Report are not reliable. If it's "too soon" then pray tell why we have an article about Super Bowl LII, which will occur two years after the season article you're going to delete will begin? Why do we have an article about 2028 Summer Olympics, which is 13 years in the future? Then there's 2023 Cricket World Cup, 2026 FIFA World Cup and more. We're discussing a season that begins training less than 12 months from now...less than one year. We know who the coach is contracted to be, we know where the home games are to be played, we know who is on the incoming class and we know a portion of the schedule that is to be played...all of it verifiable by reliable, third party sources. Lastly, if you seriously think I'm being disruptive for voicing an opinion, then as an administrator you should be well aware of how to handle that through normal dispute resolution channels. I encourage you to attack my opinion, rather than try to undermine my stance by accusing me of being disruptive. If voicing an opinion and attempting to show why the prevailing opinion among those here is wrong counts as disruptive, then I am extremely proud to be labeled as disruptive. For that matter, so should any Wikipedian. If noting multiple, reliable, third party sources that can be used to verify and source an article counts as "Liar liar pants on fire" then I'll gladly claim it as a badge of honor. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yahoo Sports, ESPN, and Sports Illustrated are widely considered reliable sources. You haven't provided any articles from those sources that establish notability of the subject in question. Bleacher Report is normally considered not to be a reliable source. If you disagree that it should be reliable, you can state reasons why you think so (but you haven't). I can't really speak to why the future articles you mention are in Wikipedia, but WP:OTHERSTUFF has no bearing on this discussion. As to what action I should take as an administrator--the answer is "nothing" because I'm involved. At first I thought you were new to Wikipedia because of the type of statements you were making, but now I see you've been actively editing as far back as 2007. You should know by now that just saying you've posted "multiple, reliable, third party sources that can be used to verify and source an article counts" is not the same thing as actually having done so. If you want to seriously discuss the merits of the issue at hand I'm certainly open to it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and by the way you said "So, as of this writing, there is still no presentation that this article can not exist because of some arbitrary date not having been reached yet" let me refer you to the aforementioned WP:TOOSOON among the list of others provided throughout this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sigh> I fail to see the point of this discussion. I cite sources, you say ESPN/SI/BR/YS are unreliable. I cite precedent with plenty of other articles pertaining to things future, and you discredit them as otherstuff. I ask for where this is codified in policy/guideline, and you reference me to a wall of policies/guidelines/essays, none of which address the specific point. I voice an opinion, and you accuse me of being disruptive. *shrug* Nothing I say will sway you. Further debate is useless. You've already won this debate, and this article will be deleted. I'd hoped to be able to sway opinion here, but that seems impossible. So, I already struck my vote. I'm not sure what you expect of me, or what will make you happy. If saying you're right and I'm wrong is the only way forward in this, I'm sorry but you'll just have to be disappointed. I'm exiting this conversation as useless. The mic is yours for repartee. I don't care. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESPN, SI, and YS are reliable sources and I have maintained that throughout the discussion. It is Bleacher Reports that I believe does not qualify. The rest of your martyr cry is not a valid argument for keeping or deleting an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (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.
More