Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament (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)

Finding zero coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:N at this time. North America1000 19:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Seriously? Conference basketball tournaments in Division I receive significant coverage and are broadcast in whole or in part on national TV. The winner gets a berth in the NCAA Tournament, which attracts enormous coverage throughout the country and world. Every men's Division I basketball conference tournament going back as long as I can remember has had an article, and deservedly so. Clearly notable. In the unlikely event consensus is that this for whatever reason isn't notable, it should be redirected to Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament rather than deleted, as WP:NSEASONS says that is preferable in such a case. Smartyllama (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON – It is so ridiculous to repeatedly come across articles about events which haven't happened and are therefore completely lacking in substance. Indiscriminately slapping together content with happenstance sources is one thing. Pushing what's supposed to be an encyclopedia further in the direction of yet another current events site and/or news site is another. Acting as if there's no obligation to create articles about past events where notability and reliable sourcing is well established only makes things worse. What part of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" requires further debate? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are hundreds of articles of precedent for this. Also, it's already notable, but if it wasn't it would become notable in about two months. The inevitability of its notability is enough for me. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:18, 27 November 2016 (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.