- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 08:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
2012–13 Hyde F.C. season
- 2012–13 Hyde 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)
Consensus has developed that club season articles are not appropriate for clubs not playing in fully-professional leagues. The 2013–14 Hyde season article was also deleted at AfD, and there are multiple other examples, e.g. here, here, here, here etc (more can be provided if required). Number 5 7 09:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - per consensus noted above. There is significant sourced prose in this article in terms of volume, but neither the text presented, nor the sources cited, discuss the season itself, it is merely an aggregation of routine match reports and essentially only duplicates the list of results in word form in the main. Fenix down ( talk) 11:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - clear delete per consensus -- nonsense ferret 13:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Hyde F.C. season, and in the absence of the team/league promotion to the appropriate level of professional play, allowing future articles in the line to be deleted WP:G4 Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 15:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Hyde F.C. season was for an article that wasn't very well referenced in comparison to this one. The other referenced discussions were or articles that well may not meet general football notability requirements, however they also didn't seem to meet WP:GNG. A few of the 120+ references in this article do meet WP:GNG, and thus the other examples are not relevant. Nfitz ( talk) 19:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Such as...?
Fenix down (
talk) 21:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Starting from number 1 ... 4 looks good
[1]. Looking elsewhere,
[2],
[3]. In particular, they received coverage about their promotion to
Conference National for this season
[4]. People are acting like this is some kind of aberration - yet most teams in this league have seasons pages.
Nfitz (
talk) 03:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Classic
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the ones that have been taken to AfD (
this and
this) were both deleted. I will be nominating the remainder for deletion after this discussion is closed.
Number
5
7 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - my point is that it meets
WP:GNG. It's not surprising that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS given that the teams are in a national level league where some of the teams are fully professional and all get national level coverage that most of the seasons of teams that play in this level will meet
WP:GNG.
Nfitz (
talk) 21:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I could create a fully referenced season article for clubs playing in the ninth and tenth levels of English football, but it doesn't mean they are in any way notable. Consensus is fairly clear that season notability follows player notability, and that seasons for non-fully pro clubs are not notable.
Number
5
7 10:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus is most certainly not clear. There have been a handful of low profile AFDs for some poorly referenced articles that may well not have met WP:GNG. However we shouldn't ignore that the meeting WP:GNG trumps anything else. If local teams playing in a county league at the tenth level of English football somehow meet WP:GNG with the extensive national coverage that the often fully-professional teams in this national league get ... then they should have individual seasons articles - though that does seem unlikely. Nfitz ( talk) 00:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I could create a fully referenced season article for clubs playing in the ninth and tenth levels of English football, but it doesn't mean they are in any way notable. Consensus is fairly clear that season notability follows player notability, and that seasons for non-fully pro clubs are not notable.
Number
5
7 10:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - my point is that it meets
WP:GNG. It's not surprising that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS given that the teams are in a national level league where some of the teams are fully professional and all get national level coverage that most of the seasons of teams that play in this level will meet
WP:GNG.
Nfitz (
talk) 21:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Classic
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the ones that have been taken to AfD (
this and
this) were both deleted. I will be nominating the remainder for deletion after this discussion is closed.
Number
5
7 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Starting from number 1 ... 4 looks good
[1]. Looking elsewhere,
[2],
[3]. In particular, they received coverage about their promotion to
Conference National for this season
[4]. People are acting like this is some kind of aberration - yet most teams in this league have seasons pages.
Nfitz (
talk) 03:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Such as...?
Fenix down (
talk) 21:18, 31 May 2015 (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.
- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 08:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
2012–13 Hyde F.C. season
- 2012–13 Hyde 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)
Consensus has developed that club season articles are not appropriate for clubs not playing in fully-professional leagues. The 2013–14 Hyde season article was also deleted at AfD, and there are multiple other examples, e.g. here, here, here, here etc (more can be provided if required). Number 5 7 09:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - per consensus noted above. There is significant sourced prose in this article in terms of volume, but neither the text presented, nor the sources cited, discuss the season itself, it is merely an aggregation of routine match reports and essentially only duplicates the list of results in word form in the main. Fenix down ( talk) 11:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - clear delete per consensus -- nonsense ferret 13:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Hyde F.C. season, and in the absence of the team/league promotion to the appropriate level of professional play, allowing future articles in the line to be deleted WP:G4 Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 15:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Hyde F.C. season was for an article that wasn't very well referenced in comparison to this one. The other referenced discussions were or articles that well may not meet general football notability requirements, however they also didn't seem to meet WP:GNG. A few of the 120+ references in this article do meet WP:GNG, and thus the other examples are not relevant. Nfitz ( talk) 19:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Such as...?
Fenix down (
talk) 21:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Starting from number 1 ... 4 looks good
[1]. Looking elsewhere,
[2],
[3]. In particular, they received coverage about their promotion to
Conference National for this season
[4]. People are acting like this is some kind of aberration - yet most teams in this league have seasons pages.
Nfitz (
talk) 03:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Classic
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the ones that have been taken to AfD (
this and
this) were both deleted. I will be nominating the remainder for deletion after this discussion is closed.
Number
5
7 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - my point is that it meets
WP:GNG. It's not surprising that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS given that the teams are in a national level league where some of the teams are fully professional and all get national level coverage that most of the seasons of teams that play in this level will meet
WP:GNG.
Nfitz (
talk) 21:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I could create a fully referenced season article for clubs playing in the ninth and tenth levels of English football, but it doesn't mean they are in any way notable. Consensus is fairly clear that season notability follows player notability, and that seasons for non-fully pro clubs are not notable.
Number
5
7 10:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus is most certainly not clear. There have been a handful of low profile AFDs for some poorly referenced articles that may well not have met WP:GNG. However we shouldn't ignore that the meeting WP:GNG trumps anything else. If local teams playing in a county league at the tenth level of English football somehow meet WP:GNG with the extensive national coverage that the often fully-professional teams in this national league get ... then they should have individual seasons articles - though that does seem unlikely. Nfitz ( talk) 00:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I could create a fully referenced season article for clubs playing in the ninth and tenth levels of English football, but it doesn't mean they are in any way notable. Consensus is fairly clear that season notability follows player notability, and that seasons for non-fully pro clubs are not notable.
Number
5
7 10:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - my point is that it meets
WP:GNG. It's not surprising that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS given that the teams are in a national level league where some of the teams are fully professional and all get national level coverage that most of the seasons of teams that play in this level will meet
WP:GNG.
Nfitz (
talk) 21:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Classic
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the ones that have been taken to AfD (
this and
this) were both deleted. I will be nominating the remainder for deletion after this discussion is closed.
Number
5
7 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Starting from number 1 ... 4 looks good
[1]. Looking elsewhere,
[2],
[3]. In particular, they received coverage about their promotion to
Conference National for this season
[4]. People are acting like this is some kind of aberration - yet most teams in this league have seasons pages.
Nfitz (
talk) 03:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Such as...?
Fenix down (
talk) 21:18, 31 May 2015 (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.