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.
KeepWP:NSEASONS states that "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements" (my emphasis). It doesn't state that a season outside of a top professional league MUST NOT be created. This article is well written with plenty of prose, and would surely meet WP:GNG, and could possibly be a GA contender. LugnutsFire Walk with Me14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - meets the NSEASONS criteria in the sense that it satisfies "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose", however, a lot of the sourcing is just routine match reports from the BBC
Spiderone15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep What is significant? Maybe the fact they got promoted back into the Football lLeague! :/ And the fact that everything is sourced discards NSeasons really and that's a sub of GNG which technically this article does pass.
Govvy (
talk)
17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Looking at references in the article, meets GNG, with significant coverage for both having just been relegated from the 4th tier, and being promoted back to it almost a year later.
Nfitz (
talk)
02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Like what Giant said as most of these are match reports which wouldn't be enough to satisfy
WP:GNG. If their was independent sources then I would be happy for it to pass but for now I don't think it's satisfies the critera.
HawkAussie (
talk)
05:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Easily passes
WP:GNG with continuous national coverage. The only argument for deletion is that it "fails
WP:NSEASONS," but NSEASONS is not an exclusionary policy, meaning an article can still exist if it passes
WP:GNG. Also, the fact a team's match reports get written up every week by secondary sources is a clear sign that season was notable, even though we typically discount match reports as insignificant. I actually think demonstrating secondary written match reports is a requirement for these types of articles.
SportingFlyerT·C09:26, 20 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.
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.
KeepWP:NSEASONS states that "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements" (my emphasis). It doesn't state that a season outside of a top professional league MUST NOT be created. This article is well written with plenty of prose, and would surely meet WP:GNG, and could possibly be a GA contender. LugnutsFire Walk with Me14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - meets the NSEASONS criteria in the sense that it satisfies "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose", however, a lot of the sourcing is just routine match reports from the BBC
Spiderone15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep What is significant? Maybe the fact they got promoted back into the Football lLeague! :/ And the fact that everything is sourced discards NSeasons really and that's a sub of GNG which technically this article does pass.
Govvy (
talk)
17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Looking at references in the article, meets GNG, with significant coverage for both having just been relegated from the 4th tier, and being promoted back to it almost a year later.
Nfitz (
talk)
02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Like what Giant said as most of these are match reports which wouldn't be enough to satisfy
WP:GNG. If their was independent sources then I would be happy for it to pass but for now I don't think it's satisfies the critera.
HawkAussie (
talk)
05:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Easily passes
WP:GNG with continuous national coverage. The only argument for deletion is that it "fails
WP:NSEASONS," but NSEASONS is not an exclusionary policy, meaning an article can still exist if it passes
WP:GNG. Also, the fact a team's match reports get written up every week by secondary sources is a clear sign that season was notable, even though we typically discount match reports as insignificant. I actually think demonstrating secondary written match reports is a requirement for these types of articles.
SportingFlyerT·C09:26, 20 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.