- 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 merge. ( non-admin closure) Citing ( talk) 05:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NSEASONS. I believe this article along with 1889–90 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1888–89 Kilmarnock F.C. season and so on until the 1884–85 Kilmarnock F.C. season, should be either deleted or merged with their respective Scottish Cup article eg. 1885–86 Scottish Cup. Sorry if this is a bit hard to understand. The talk page ( User talk:Anythingtoget) of the creator gives evidence of other problematic season articles created by this user. Perhaps a case at ANI should be opened up? See also User talk:Anythingtoget#Season Pages. Cheers Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ Willbb234: please clearly list all articles you have nominated for deletion here. Giant Snowman 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman:
1884–85 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1885–86 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1886–87 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1887–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1888–89 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1889–90 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season (this last one is the article that the AfD is title off of). Regards,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
Willbb234: no, I meant in-line with III of
WP:BUNDLE (include it in bullet form in your original nomination so it's crystal clear to all from the beginning). Currently I suggest procedural keep given the way you have gone about this nomination.
Giant
Snowman
09:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman:
To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination
I bundled this AfD out of courtesy to my fellow editors. I had no requiement to bundle, nor did I have a requirement to bundle it in a certain way. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 09:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- @
Willbb234: have you even read
WP:BUNDLE? The instructions are clear -
To bundle articles for deletion, follow these steps
. It is not a suggestion, it is a request. You have failed to follow that, with negative connotations, and as such you will not get a supporting !vote from me (if you had done so then I likely would have !voted to delete or merge all). Giant Snowman 09:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- @
GiantSnowman: so now people can !vote keep if they don't agree with how someone has presented an AfD? Forget it,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
- @
Willbb234: Yes, it's a procedural keep if the bundling was conducted improperly (as here) or inappropriately (such as too many articles). See eg
this AFD and
this AFD.
Giant
Snowman
11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ GiantSnowman: those examples are invalid as they show an AfD where the bundled articles differ greatly from the primary article being AfDed. In this case, all articles bundled are very similar. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
Willbb234: Yes, it's a procedural keep if the bundling was conducted improperly (as here) or inappropriately (such as too many articles). See eg
this AFD and
this AFD.
Giant
Snowman
11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman: so now people can !vote keep if they don't agree with how someone has presented an AfD? Forget it,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
- @
Willbb234: have you even read
WP:BUNDLE? The instructions are clear -
- @
GiantSnowman:
- @
Willbb234: no, I meant in-line with III of
WP:BUNDLE (include it in bullet form in your original nomination so it's crystal clear to all from the beginning). Currently I suggest procedural keep given the way you have gone about this nomination.
Giant
Snowman
09:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman:
1884–85 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1885–86 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1886–87 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1887–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1888–89 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1889–90 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season (this last one is the article that the AfD is title off of). Regards,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps merge in a similar way to 1870s Rangers F.C. seasons? They are equally as notable and, if I'm right, they'd need to be playing in a domestic league for each individual article to pass WP:NSeasons on their own (not that there were any until 1890). Deleting them would set a precedent for similar articles at at Category:Scottish football clubs 1885–86 season for example (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing). I'd hazard cup winners/finalists would still be considered notable seasons but not many others given the lack of sourcing. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 23:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Merge I don't see the point of this AfD, WP:BEBOLD, just go a head and merge the articles together to form a new article to show that period for the history of the club. Govvy ( talk) 13:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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 merge. ( non-admin closure) Citing ( talk) 05:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NSEASONS. I believe this article along with 1889–90 Kilmarnock F.C. season, 1888–89 Kilmarnock F.C. season and so on until the 1884–85 Kilmarnock F.C. season, should be either deleted or merged with their respective Scottish Cup article eg. 1885–86 Scottish Cup. Sorry if this is a bit hard to understand. The talk page ( User talk:Anythingtoget) of the creator gives evidence of other problematic season articles created by this user. Perhaps a case at ANI should be opened up? See also User talk:Anythingtoget#Season Pages. Cheers Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ Willbb234: please clearly list all articles you have nominated for deletion here. Giant Snowman 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman:
1884–85 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1885–86 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1886–87 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1887–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1888–89 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1889–90 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season (this last one is the article that the AfD is title off of). Regards,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
Willbb234: no, I meant in-line with III of
WP:BUNDLE (include it in bullet form in your original nomination so it's crystal clear to all from the beginning). Currently I suggest procedural keep given the way you have gone about this nomination.
Giant
Snowman
09:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman:
To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination
I bundled this AfD out of courtesy to my fellow editors. I had no requiement to bundle, nor did I have a requirement to bundle it in a certain way. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 09:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- @
Willbb234: have you even read
WP:BUNDLE? The instructions are clear -
To bundle articles for deletion, follow these steps
. It is not a suggestion, it is a request. You have failed to follow that, with negative connotations, and as such you will not get a supporting !vote from me (if you had done so then I likely would have !voted to delete or merge all). Giant Snowman 09:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- @
GiantSnowman: so now people can !vote keep if they don't agree with how someone has presented an AfD? Forget it,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
- @
Willbb234: Yes, it's a procedural keep if the bundling was conducted improperly (as here) or inappropriately (such as too many articles). See eg
this AFD and
this AFD.
Giant
Snowman
11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ GiantSnowman: those examples are invalid as they show an AfD where the bundled articles differ greatly from the primary article being AfDed. In this case, all articles bundled are very similar. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
Willbb234: Yes, it's a procedural keep if the bundling was conducted improperly (as here) or inappropriately (such as too many articles). See eg
this AFD and
this AFD.
Giant
Snowman
11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman: so now people can !vote keep if they don't agree with how someone has presented an AfD? Forget it,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
- @
Willbb234: have you even read
WP:BUNDLE? The instructions are clear -
- @
GiantSnowman:
- @
Willbb234: no, I meant in-line with III of
WP:BUNDLE (include it in bullet form in your original nomination so it's crystal clear to all from the beginning). Currently I suggest procedural keep given the way you have gone about this nomination.
Giant
Snowman
09:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman:
1884–85 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1885–86 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1886–87 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1887–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1888–89 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1889–90 Kilmarnock F.C. season,
1890–91 Kilmarnock F.C. season (this last one is the article that the AfD is title off of). Regards,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps merge in a similar way to 1870s Rangers F.C. seasons? They are equally as notable and, if I'm right, they'd need to be playing in a domestic league for each individual article to pass WP:NSeasons on their own (not that there were any until 1890). Deleting them would set a precedent for similar articles at at Category:Scottish football clubs 1885–86 season for example (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing). I'd hazard cup winners/finalists would still be considered notable seasons but not many others given the lack of sourcing. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 23:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Merge I don't see the point of this AfD, WP:BEBOLD, just go a head and merge the articles together to form a new article to show that period for the history of the club. Govvy ( talk) 13:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)