Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Seven Conferences

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. WP:SNOW close. A clear consensus for deletion is evident in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power_Seven_Conferences

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

Uncited/misinformation, rampant vandalism, edit warring because of a non neutral party editing the uncited misinformation Encmetalhead (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why CSD the article then put it up for AfD this makes no sense. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the (seemingly bias) editor kept deleting the tag so I wanted to make sure this article was properly vetted for possible deletion. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the CSD. Misinformation, vandalism, and edit warring are not good reasons to AfD pages, otherwise there would be no pages at Wikipedia. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice how they are trying to blank this discussion and canvassing for votes/support. Both against the rules. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up at WP:AIN. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, none found via Google search. This term seems to be WP:OR. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but until then, the article should not be in WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term does exist. I have found it used in a number of different sources, but I am having trouble finding any in depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. The lack of RS citations in the article is also troubling and suggests a good deal of WP:OR. At the moment the article appears to fail WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide these citations if you are able. If not, the article is likely to be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an essay and does not support neologisms.--Rpclod (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that at some time today, among the dozens of edits that I was disinclined to wade through, the opening words of this article were changed from "Power Seven" to "Power Eight". Could someone familiar with this topic area explain, without any editorialising, what is going on here? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It stems from the catholic 7 seperating from the Big East and leaving behind the all sports schools. They were eventually given the Big East name and the all sports schools became the AAC. If you know about the old BE you know how intense the rivalries were. That has carried on in a sense as it's now BE vs AAC. So it's most likely a few BE fans trying to place their bias spin on the landscape and a few AAC fans trying to say "we see you and respect you, but should be included as well." In the end both schools and the A10 (whom I believe is an innocent bystander in this incident) are technically high majors. Now if there was an article that laid out what each tier is, what makes each tier that tier, and what conferences are in which tier and was properly sourced that may be a good article but then you may have a battle each time a fan of a school sees it and doesn't like where their conference is placed. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, but I was hoping for an explanation that could be understood by someone other than a diehard fan of American college basketball. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of popular couple hated each other. When popular couple broke up, friends split into two fractions and the fractions attacked one another. Encmetalhead (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article had citations to reliable sources, we would be able to learn what this is from those reliable sources. Please provide them if you are able. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:V and probably WP:GNG. This looks like a WP:OR essay and while I have found a few uses of the term, none come close to the kind of coverage needed to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, not in common use. Compare Power Five conferences for football, which is used regularly. There are a few scattered articles which do use "Power Seven" but they all post-date this article's creation which raises a potential WP:CIRCULAR issue. Mackensen (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that we can't even decide on the basis of reliable sources whether this is a "Power Seven" (as in the article title) a "Power Eight" (as in the article text) or a "Power Six" (as suggested on the talk page) means that we do not have the sources needed to write an article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the article content discusses "Power Eight", I have moved it to that title, which should not affect its deletion if that is the result of the AfD (simply delete and the redirect from "Power Seven"). I have no opinion regarding the nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. You have moved the article from one neologism to another. That is not helpful. From WP:AFDEQ: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. "No prohibition" is your loophole; go ahead and jump through it, as usual. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when the "eight" was inserted as part of an edit war, with the editor introducing that change being blocked. I would be in favor of moving this article back to Seven until the AfD is complete, and if rename is the consensus (which seems unlikely) then we do it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One neologism is as good as another (if indeed they are neologisms), and the results of this AfD will apply to the article under whatever name it is titled. In the meantime, it is confusing to the reader to have an article under title X while the article discusses Y. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I move it backed and changed the Eights to Sevens, don't move it again. Encmetalhead (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I most probably won't, but not because of the ludicrous attempt of an editor with 971 edits over 9 years to pull rank. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism with no WP:RSs. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely does not satisfy WP:GNG even if some WP:RSs were to be found. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also this is getting into WP:SNOW territory, maybe it's time to close this one out. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:14, 1 December 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.