- 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 procedural keep. No prejudice against renominating these individually if a valid rationale is provided. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season ( | 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)
Penepi ( talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unfinished, incomplete and/or pretty much empty articles:
- 2013–14 MŠK Žilina season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2015–16 MFK Zemplín Michalovce season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2021–22 MŠK Žilina season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2022–23 AS Trenčín season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2022–23 FC DAC 1904 Dunajská Streda season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep Different clubs, different seasons, with different sources, this is a terrible nomination. @
GiantSnowman: You should know better than to allow this as an admin.
Govvy (
talk)
17:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Bundling is allowed for related articles, and I see no reason why it should not be permitted here. Giant Snowman 18:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
-
Govvy I really can't see what is terrible about nominating empty articles. If you said that about two articles from the current season, potentially about the one from the 2021–22 season, I might incline to agree that they deserve some more time, but otherwise the only terrible thing is the logic to keep the other articles. The 2013–14 and 2015–16 articles haven't been edited in years, so it's very unlikely that anything will change about this in the future, and what's the point of having incomplete/empty articles here? But if you like, feel free to complete all of them, I'll be more than happy. Penepi (
talk)
11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ Penepi: The country league is the only thing that keeps them together, different seasons can have different results, different clubs can actually have different results. The way you have bundled is a lot of work to review each season article and not only that you're asking people to delete these, when they need to be assessed differently. This is not a good nomination. Govvy ( talk) 15:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep These pages are mostly for the top league in Slovakia - a fully professional league. As such WP:NSEASONS is met. Furthermore, the reason for nomination appears to be that the pages need improving. Which means as per WP:ATD they should be improved not deleted. Nfitz ( talk) 10:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Question.
WP:NSEASONS specifically states:
In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.
On that basis, my question is: Is there any way that some of these individual seasons could be combined together in a single article, incorporating at least a paragraph or two of meaningful prose citing reliable sources? Cielquiparle ( talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment @ Cielquiparle: Why would you group a season from 2013-14 with a season from 2022-23, there is no logic in doing that. Yet we have multiple seasons from different years in one AfD here. This is not a practical way to run an AfD. Govvy ( talk) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd think the combining would be mostly done in cases where a team for a season or two had slipped into a lower league which many not meet NSEASONS. Some (all?) of these nominations are for top league seasons. There's no prejudice against trying to merge articles once the AFD is over. That's more of a content issue. Nfitz ( talk) 05:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural keep (reject and invalidate nomination). Deeply troubling that nominator has used the term "empty articles" in the original nomination, and twice in a subsequent comment. The concern is that it misrepresents the current state of not only one, but a bundle of articles nominated for deletion, and that it could easily mislead participants into believing that each of those articles is completely devoid of content and sources, which is not the case at all. This alone is sufficient reason to invalidate this nomination, IMO. In addition, the other two reasons given in the nomination – "unfinished" and "incomplete" – are not grounds for deletion; all Wikipedia articles are by definition works in progress. The subsequent comment of "haven't been edited in years" is also not grounds for deletion per WP:NEGLECT; and the comment "feel free to complete all of them" obviously flouts WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Strongly recommend that the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:Deletion policy and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cielquiparle ( talk) 08:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 05:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep all - I oppose bundling this many articles into one discussion as it's almost impossible to have a constructive debate about each individual one so, to some extent, I'm looking for a procedural keep. There will be some coverage of 2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, for example, since they won the league that season. In fact, definitely 'keep' for Slovan's 2013–14 season due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Webnoviny, which discusses at length their potential for a league and cup double, Teraz, from which I found several articles about Slovan's season and Dobrenoviny, which also discusses Slovan's title prospects and the further prospect of a record-breaking attendance in a crucial match. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 12 January 2023 (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 procedural keep. No prejudice against renominating these individually if a valid rationale is provided. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season ( | 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)
Penepi ( talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unfinished, incomplete and/or pretty much empty articles:
- 2013–14 MŠK Žilina season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2015–16 MFK Zemplín Michalovce season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2021–22 MŠK Žilina season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2022–23 AS Trenčín season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2022–23 FC DAC 1904 Dunajská Streda season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep Different clubs, different seasons, with different sources, this is a terrible nomination. @
GiantSnowman: You should know better than to allow this as an admin.
Govvy (
talk)
17:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Bundling is allowed for related articles, and I see no reason why it should not be permitted here. Giant Snowman 18:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
-
Govvy I really can't see what is terrible about nominating empty articles. If you said that about two articles from the current season, potentially about the one from the 2021–22 season, I might incline to agree that they deserve some more time, but otherwise the only terrible thing is the logic to keep the other articles. The 2013–14 and 2015–16 articles haven't been edited in years, so it's very unlikely that anything will change about this in the future, and what's the point of having incomplete/empty articles here? But if you like, feel free to complete all of them, I'll be more than happy. Penepi (
talk)
11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ Penepi: The country league is the only thing that keeps them together, different seasons can have different results, different clubs can actually have different results. The way you have bundled is a lot of work to review each season article and not only that you're asking people to delete these, when they need to be assessed differently. This is not a good nomination. Govvy ( talk) 15:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep These pages are mostly for the top league in Slovakia - a fully professional league. As such WP:NSEASONS is met. Furthermore, the reason for nomination appears to be that the pages need improving. Which means as per WP:ATD they should be improved not deleted. Nfitz ( talk) 10:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Question.
WP:NSEASONS specifically states:
In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.
On that basis, my question is: Is there any way that some of these individual seasons could be combined together in a single article, incorporating at least a paragraph or two of meaningful prose citing reliable sources? Cielquiparle ( talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment @ Cielquiparle: Why would you group a season from 2013-14 with a season from 2022-23, there is no logic in doing that. Yet we have multiple seasons from different years in one AfD here. This is not a practical way to run an AfD. Govvy ( talk) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd think the combining would be mostly done in cases where a team for a season or two had slipped into a lower league which many not meet NSEASONS. Some (all?) of these nominations are for top league seasons. There's no prejudice against trying to merge articles once the AFD is over. That's more of a content issue. Nfitz ( talk) 05:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural keep (reject and invalidate nomination). Deeply troubling that nominator has used the term "empty articles" in the original nomination, and twice in a subsequent comment. The concern is that it misrepresents the current state of not only one, but a bundle of articles nominated for deletion, and that it could easily mislead participants into believing that each of those articles is completely devoid of content and sources, which is not the case at all. This alone is sufficient reason to invalidate this nomination, IMO. In addition, the other two reasons given in the nomination – "unfinished" and "incomplete" – are not grounds for deletion; all Wikipedia articles are by definition works in progress. The subsequent comment of "haven't been edited in years" is also not grounds for deletion per WP:NEGLECT; and the comment "feel free to complete all of them" obviously flouts WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Strongly recommend that the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:Deletion policy and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cielquiparle ( talk) 08:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 05:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep all - I oppose bundling this many articles into one discussion as it's almost impossible to have a constructive debate about each individual one so, to some extent, I'm looking for a procedural keep. There will be some coverage of 2013–14 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season, for example, since they won the league that season. In fact, definitely 'keep' for Slovan's 2013–14 season due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Webnoviny, which discusses at length their potential for a league and cup double, Teraz, from which I found several articles about Slovan's season and Dobrenoviny, which also discusses Slovan's title prospects and the further prospect of a record-breaking attendance in a crucial match. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 12 January 2023 (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.