Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opening Round

Opening Round

Opening Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament.

At this point, what notability does the Opening Round have that the Rounds of 64 and 32, the Sweet Sixteen, and the Elite Eight, do not, all of which do not have their own articles. Certainly, when the First Four was instituted in 2011, it could have been necessary for a descriptive article as it was a new and novel thing to people. However, especially with the recent expansion, it is now "just another round". All of this information can be suitably merged into the NCAA Division I men's (and women's) tournament pages. In terms of the results section, it doesn't really make sense that we record every single First Four/Opening Round game played, but not every single result for more important rounds.

An additional note: if we are going to keep the article, this new title cannot stand without a disambiguation, as there are several other tournaments worldwide that use the term "Opening Round". Red0ctober22 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I could see the rationale considering that the Opening Round has lost its charm with triple the teams and games, however I would consider the First Four and the original Opening Round to be in the same vein as the NBA play-in tournament or even the Wild Card Series.

So I would keep the First Four and the Opening Round game and rename the article back to "First Four". MarcusAbacus (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Well I would object to putting it on the same level of both those things. For one, the NBA play-in is a true “play-in”, meaning if you lose in the play-in, you aren’t considered to have made a playoff appearance. In the First Four/Opening Round, even though they call it a “play-in”, it is still fully part of the tournament, and you still are considered to have made the NCAA tournament even if you lose in the play-in. Even though it doesn’t seem that way, the First Four/Opening Round is just as much a part of the tournament as the Round of 64, Round of 32, Sweet 16, Elite 8, etc., all of which do not have their own pages.

The Wild Card Series comparison doesn’t really work because MLB has individual pages for every single playoff round, which in and of itself is questionable for Wikipedia standards, but that’s a whole other conversation. Red0ctober22 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose The opening round of the tournament is so replete with its own distinct history, mechanics, and lore separate from the general tournament itself that I believe its mergence would -almost certainly require that some of the history and information specific to it be lost. March Madness is big enough of an American cultural phenomenon to warrant non-consolidation of the articles. I respectfully oppose merging the two articles. The encyclopedia should be easily navigable, and so if we keep distinct pages for these intratournament noteworthy topics, we should do so, rather than forcing a long and winding single article. I respectfully oppose.

Ballardy Talk Page 03:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I would say if you look at the article itself, most of the "History" and "Format" section can easily be merged into the NCAA tournament main page, and at the same time, a lot of things especially regarding the formatting is already in the NCAA tournament page. What would be "lost" are the results from these games, and there I would ask: what makes the First Four deserving of a dedicated page while the Round of 64, Round of 32, Sweet Sixteen, and Elite Eight, all certainly more prestigious and important rounds, all do not have their own pages that recorded results from every year?

I don't really agree that there is a sort of "distinctive lore and history" surrounding the First Four/Opening Round, given that it has only been around for 16 years compared to the 80+ years the entire tournament has existed. Again, it is NOT a play-in round, even when it used to be the First Four. The NCAA has always and continues to treat it as much part of the tournament as all the other rounds were, and that is especially true with the new Opening Round. Red0ctober22 (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• I would lean towards Merge. Certainly it can be merged; the article is quite long, but has a lot of padding (often unreferenced, synthesized, or repeating information that better belongs in individual season/tournament pages), and I believe the core encyclopedic content could be merged effectively. I'm also left with the feeling that the single play-in, the First Four, and the 12-team opening round aren't quite a cohesive topic – it's kind of three separate things, each separately related to expansion in the 20th century. Merging into NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament also may not be the optimal end option – it might be best to spin out parts of the History and Format sections of the parent article and merge it with this one, call it History of expansion of the NCAA tournament... or something like that, covering the entire history of expansion rather than just expansion past 64 teams. If this discussion does result in no merge, I agree that the article must be moved due to wide other usage of Opening Round. Aspirex (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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.