Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987–88 Bradley Braves men's basketball team

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 keep. Needs work, but meet inclusion criteria. (non-admin closure) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1987–88 Bradley Braves men's basketball 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 NSEASON as it is primarily statistics and lists of players (and the list of player is itself incredibly incomplete). Given the team's performance that season there is likely an article to be written about the topic but this is not it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not cleanup. This article needs work (alot of it) but not deletion. Dammit_steve (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the nomination, ... there is likely an article to be written about the topic but this is not it. However, policy WP:DEL-CONTENT says that we generally do not delete notable topics merely due to content issues. Barring a statement that WP:BEFORE showed GNG was not met, I'd suggest this AfD be withdrawn.—Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Let's make it a redirect until such time that a policy and guideline compliant article can be written. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a suggestion you can make if the article isn’t improved during the AfD process. Rikster2 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a valid AfD outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid reason specified for deletion. If the article can be improved, then it shouldn't be deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I've added some sourced prose to the article. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not performed, and this discussion remains open to grandstand some WP:POINT about NSEASONS.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not cleanup. Sources exist to show that this subject meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team won its conference championship, advanced to the NCAA tournament, featured the national scoring champion, and most importantly was the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources such that WP:GNG is satisfied. Any deficiencies noted by the nominator are cause for improvement, not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now has two reliable sources and I know the subject meets GNG. Still needs a lot of work, though. Rikster2 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2019 (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.