Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 MLS SuperDraft (2nd nomination)

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. Secret ^account 22:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 MLS SuperDraft

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

Speedy deletion declined. While there is more information than in the last version, it's still too soon to justify an article, given that dates, location, and whether or not it will be merged with the supplemental draft all remain to be determined. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 11 trades made pertaining to the 2015 MLS Draft, which is two draft cycles away. There is a Wiki page for the 2014 NHL Draft (two cycles away) which has 10 trades and no event date, and the 2014 NFL Draft (two cycles away) which has only 3 trades. If these similar North American sports drafts warrant pages now then so does the 2015 MLS Draft.Bubbagump24 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale. If you ask me these pages should be deleted also. The bottom line is any future event which in and of itself has not yet received any coverage is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has received coverage from media in Kansas City, Boston, Salt Lake, Toronto, Los Angeles, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, Vancouver, Portland, Washington D.C., Columbus, and Montreal by virtue of reporting traded 2015 draft picks involving those clubs. This draft has similarly been mentioned numerous times by U.S. and Canadian national news media reporting 2015 trades. Two-thirds of the clubs in the league have already made 2015 draft trades. That's notable.Bubbagump24 (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely my point. The coverage to date has all been incidental. To date there has been no coverage of the draft itself, as evidenced by the fact that the date, location, and format are all still to be determined. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, too far away. Giant Snowman 09:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly nothing notable can be said about this topic now, WP:ROUTINE coverage of picks being traded does not equate to solid basic information such as date, location and logistics. Which leaves the article without any encyclopaedic information. C 679 19:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added date, added location, added format. Bubbagump24 (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Plus there's no evidence regarding the date and location of the draft. – Michael (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." It goes on to state: "In particular: 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

Every previous MLS SuperDraft has been "of sufficiently wide interest" to merit an article. The event "is notable and almost certain to take place" as it has occurred every year since the league started. The fact that 13 of the 19 MLS clubs have already made trades involving picks in the 2015 SuperDraft is evidence that "preparation for the event" is already in progress. All of these facts run contrary to the rejection criteria stated in WP:Crystal. Bubbagump24 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too far away. Bring it back in a year. WP:ROUTINE news reports about traded picks does not equate to significant coverage. No one is disputing that this could be a valid article later, but there does seem to be agreement that for now, it's too early. C 679 05:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the page wasn't created because of the date, it was created because of actions pertaining to the event. If only 1 or 2 trades had been made I would agree that it doesn't deserve a page. But 11 trades have been made involving 68% of the clubs in MLS. The date is irrelevant at this point. The page creation was driven by the actions of the clubs and MLS. Bubbagump24 (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 12 trades involving 74% of the clubs in MLS, including the 1st round 2015 pick traded today. Bubbagump24 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2013 (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.