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. Fenix down ( talk) 21:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

1997–98 Kent Football League

1997–98 Kent Football League (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

This follows a discussion here about the notability of season articles for leagues at this level of the English football pyramid. Points for consideration:

• Is the topic covered enough in reliable sources?
• Does this violate WP:NOTSTATS?
• Is there potential for passing WP:GNG? Spiderone 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Season articles at this level have existed for ten years or so, as clubs at this level are already considered notable. One or two editors have recently created articles for seasons going back further. Bearing in mind the season's fixtures and events are covered by all the clubs involved, and the relevant local press, I think they would easily satisfy WP:GNG if they were properly developed, if they don't already. The issue is that a lot of these, especially the recent creations, don't include many sources. I did mention that to the editor involved, but he hasn't really taken it on board. The rationale for the creation of season (and club) articles was always that the league in question should operate within the top ten levels of English football, and satisfy WP:GNG. Today, this league does operate within those parameters. Whether it did in 1997–98, as the pyramid system was different then, I don't know. Whether that matters here, I am not sure. The article could and should be developed. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note – Those editors who regularly create articles of this exact type should also be informed of this discussion, as if this one is deleted, then presumably the other few hundred season articles at these levels will also go. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I've notified everyone that took part in the initial discussion on the project talk page. I've now invited three other major contributors to the discussion. Please let me know if any others have been missed. Spiderone 22:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

User:Drawoh46 and User:Kivo regularly work on this type of article. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorted, thanks Spiderone 22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Here you can see the previous AfD on topic. The general consensus is that the season articles are limited to those leagues whose clubs are notable, i.e. down to Step 6, which is cut-off line to enter FA Cup. As you can see here all the similar (look 9-10 levels line) articles are creating each year. So I cant see why we shouldnt have the previous seasons articles. Martinklavier ( talk) 21:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep As both the league and clubs are deemed notable, I think it follows that league seasons are also notable. Although it's going to be a bit difficult to find online due to the age of this particular season, there would have been regular media coverage of the league's games in the regional press, plus some by the BBC (the Kent League is part of regular BBC Football reports like this or this), so I think it would pass GNG. There was also quite clear consensus from a couple of previous AfDs that seasons at this level are notable, i.e. this and this Number 5 7 21:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - While there may be prior consensus that these divisions are notable, consensus can change. I feel like there is such limited and sporadic coverage of these leagues that the content is limited to results, league tables and changes from the previous season, which is surely the definition of violating WP:NOTSTATS. The ones I've looked at have nothing that would indicate that they are notable as anything other than "something that happened". A sports league existing and its results being recorded is hardly out of the ordinary, and beyond bare results, very few stats are recorded by anyone other than the clubs themselves. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything particularly notable about a league table and a results grid, especially this low down the football pyramid. – Pee Jay 22:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I support the arguments of Martinklavier. Matilda Maniac ( talk) 05:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep League is now deemed Step 5&6, which is notable enough for a season article, and even back then it was a feeder to the Southern League. Plus, member clubs were competing in the FA Cup that season, so more than notable enough in my opinion. Kivo ( talk) 09:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per Bretonbanquet and Number 57. I'd prefer to see some sourced prose as well as a league table, and whatever's in these creations must be sourced. But that issue isn't unique to league seasons at this level or of this age: if we're talking NOTSTATS, 2018–19 EFL League One has screensful of largely unsourced tables and four lines of prose. As to coverage, while it doesn't go back as far as this particular season, the Kentish Football website covers this area's football at a level way above bare results. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - even though I !voted 'delete' last time around; there is more coverage of the lower leagues now and consensus (at both sets of AFDs) is clear. Giant Snowman 10:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comments I find it somewhat odd that people are forgetting how important WP:GNG is to an article. At current, this article completely fails GNG. There is one link, that's it. I strongly suggest this be moved to draft space for the issues to be addressed. I am not against if the article was properly source. But I find the keep votes strangely floored in my opinion. Govvy ( talk) 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have added a few lines of prose and a few references, at least as a start. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 17:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I'm still failing to see anything that makes this particular season of the Kent Football League notable. The content you added is certainly part of the history of the clubs in question, and no one is doubting the notability of the clubs, but what exactly is the encyclopaedic value of this article? – Pee Jay 22:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not sure I really understand the question. What's the exact encyclopedic value of any other article, which this one may lack? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Some indication that this season is memorable for anything other than simply happening would be nice. – Pee Jay 22:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
          • If we are to delete every article which just recounts something that happened or something that exists or once existed, then that'll run into the hundreds of thousands. I'm not sure subjects of articles are required to be 'memorable' beyond the general notability guideline. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
            • I would like to raise the question according to current season articles. What should we do under this approach? Should we wait till something memorable happen and then create an article and if not, then article shouldnt exist? Martinklavier ( talk) 06:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
              • As an example, is 1890–91 Football League memorable for anything other than happening...? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                • Well, it was the first time Everton won the top division of English football. I'm just curious as to how we decided that this level of football was notable enough to be automatically eligible for an article. At least with the Football League, there has been coverage in national newspapers since the year dot, and it's a professional level of the game. What's so special about the Kent Football League or the North West Counties Football League? They've never been anything other than regional leagues, and if they had any professional status in the past, that is long since no longer the case. – Pee Jay 13:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
            • Okay, so how does this subject meet the general notability guidelines? – Pee Jay 13:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
              • I don't think anyone is suggesting that it does Spiderone 14:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                • That's literally the argument that User:Bretonbanquet is using. If they're saying that these subjects don't need to be particularly memorable beyond the GNG, then obviously they're saying they meet the GNG, and I don't see how that's the case. – Pee Jay 15:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                  • Who says they have to be professional? What has professionalism got to do with anything? A topic does not have to be covered in the national press to be eligible for an article, and as I said originally, and others have said, these leagues are heavily covered in the regional press. If your issue is that non-professional football does not belong on Wikipedia then that's a much wider issue than can be tackled here. As for GNG, then yes I do think this article satisfies it. Significant coverage in reliable sources / non-trivial mentions (FCHD and NLM), plus official club websites, all independent of the subject. Is it the back page of the tabloids? No, but it doesn't need to be. This coverage creates an assumption of notability, to my mind, backed up by the clear consensus here and at the other AfDs which people keep throwing up. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 18:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                    • I have never said that non-league football doesn't belong on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I totally agree that articles about the teams and the leagues themselves should be included, but I think articles on the individual seasons of each league shouldn't. Articles should not be created if the GNG cannot be satisfied, and in this case, the GNG are not satisfied. My argument about professional leagues is that they are a bright line between the top levels of football and the lower levels that other organisations such as the BBC and Sky Sports use when determining which matches to feature in their news coverage. You're arguing that club websites are independent of the subject, when in fact they are quite the opposite; clubs have a vested interest in covering the division their teams play in. FCHD is also hardly non-trivial, as it covers every team down to a certain level and while it is comprehensive and reliable, with all due respect to User:Richard Rundle, it is little more than a fansite. The season pages for each of the lower leagues, by the way, only include a league table and a list of changes from one season to the next – hardly anything other than routine. Not sure what the NLM is so I can't respond to that, but to my mind, you've yet to provide any evidence of significant coverage of these leagues. – Pee Jay 20:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                      • Maybe you should read again what I said, I did say if that's what you're saying – it seemed to be the implication. We're not going to agree here so I see little value in filling the page up with chat. I would say though that if you're fine with the teams and leagues themselves satisfying GNG, there's a bit of a contradiction there as the source material for those articles is largely the same as for this. NLM (Non League Matters) is used in the article we're debating, so maybe take another look. More recent season articles at this level often include results, stadia, maps, cups etc – routine or otherwise, sometimes exactly the same as for EFL, depending on which editors maintains them. Again, maybe take another look. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                        • I have taken several looks. I guess my standards are just higher than yours when it comes to properly establishing notability. – Pee Jay 20:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                          • Your standard of reasoned argument not so much. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                            • Remember WP:NPA. – Pee Jay 20:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                              • It also applies to you, in case you were unaware. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
                                • If you could point out where I made a personal attack, I'd be most grateful. – Pee Jay 05:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As per Bretonbanquet, Number 57, Kivo, Martinklavier and others. It has previously been established that season articles for leagues operating at Level 10 and above in the English Football Pyramid are regarded as notable. This league operated at the level which is now equivalent to the present Level 10, so, along with others of a similar nature, should be retained. Drawoh46 ( talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note. Just wanted to add. As have been said higher consensus can change, of course. But, for many years we have a clear, accurate, and extremely well-defined consensus which continues to be supported every time someone decides to create AfD - all the clubs ever eligible for FA Cup are notable, then all the leagues they played in at the moment are notable and all the seasons the league was presented in FA Cup are notable. The criteria provide a clear cut-off line of what is notable and what is not. Personally I followed these criteria creating season articles, the same relates to ones who create seventeen 9th/10th-level league articles every summer for upcoming seasons. We have a similar consensus for players which is working fine for many years: if a player appeared on the field for the Football League club (even for one minute, even in a cup game) then he is notable, otherwise - not. Consensus around club seasons is working too. Noone still didn't offer new criteria for league seasons articles, which is necessary if you don't like the old one. Taking into account a large number of articles under discussion we can't afford to create AfD for every particular article (or even for every particular league) and decide whether it satisfies GNG or not. I accept that the articles are stub-class and need to be improved but no more than, for example, the article about the Football League of the same year. Cheers, Martinklavier ( talk) 07:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep not difficult to find some coverage of matches in this league. If the argument against individual articles for teams seasons at this level is that there's a league article ... there needs to be a league article. Nfitz ( talk) 21:50, 3 October 2020 (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.