- 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. Precedent aside, solid consensus here to delete. I am sympathetic to the GNG arguments, but not convinced. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
2017–18 Leyton Orient F.C. season
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2017–18 Leyton Orient 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)
Fails WP:NSEASONS as the National League is not a fully-professional league. For previous precedent, see AfDs like this, this, this etc. Number 5 7 21:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 07:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, fails WP:NSEASONS. 21.colinthompson ( talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006–07 York City F.C. season which is more recent than the other AFDs. Peter James ( talk) 22:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This is an incredibly semantic argument which ignores
WP:GNG.
WP:NSEASONS has no requirement for professionalism, as seen with the numerous college sports seasons in the United States. Furthermore the National League receives a high level of news coverage and most if all articles for the National League should be able to pass WP:GNG. It seems silly a professional team isn't allowed to have a season article since they got relegated into a league well-covered by the media.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus from numerous AfDs (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 in additions to the one I cited above) is that in the case of football, being fully-professional is a requirement to pass NSEASONS.
Number
5
7 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Be it as it may, the consensus is arbitrary and completely ignores
WP:GNG. There's no reason a team that's professional (even if there are non-professional teams in the league) and well-covered in the media can't have an article about its season. While the sources are primary or WP:MILL, the rule here is there needs to be enough material in order for the seasons page to be more than just statistical, and even though this isn't at the moment, it could easily get there.
SportingFlyer
talk 15:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the key rule though, the subject needs to show GNG and primary / routine sources don't do that by definition.
Fenix down (
talk) 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is very few seasons will actually be able to pass WP:GNG on their own - possibly only through history books written about the club? The cutoff line for the English National League is arbitrary, as is the consensus which establishes it, as nowhere in WP:NSEASONS mandates a fully professional league. The National League has been significantly covered for years in multiple reliable publications (some of which have the league as their primary focus), the majority of the clubs I believe are professional including this one, and is a fully national league, and I think it'd be possible to source this article without making one reference to the club's official website. I know this article will be deleted "as per consensus," but I am fervently against the consensus. For instance, if you were to redact which league the clubs played in, there is no reason this should be deleted and, say, 2017–18 Fleetwood Town F.C. season (in this instance, selected due to heavy sourcing from the club website) kept. Leyton even averaged more than 1,000 more people a game than Fleetwood. SportingFlyer talk 04:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, my specific argument is: NSEASONS does not mandate a fully professional league, and even then, the majority if not all National League-level season articles would satisfy
WP:GNG due to the level of secondary coverage of the league.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't but it does specifically state "top professional leagues". This is the fifth tier of english football and cannot really be considered a "top professional league". Consensus over time has been established through AfD that leagues that can be shown to be fully professional can also reasonably be described as "top professional leagues" from a global perspective regardless of the level that an individual competition sits within its own country's pyramid. As such, season articles for "non-league" English clubs need to show GNG and that cannot be done through primary sources or a synthesis of routine match / transfer reporting.
Fenix down (
talk) 08:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but it can still be done. There's a significant exception for notable amateur college sports in the United States due to the level of coverage, and the top professional league assumption is based on the fact that significant coverage of the league will always exist. Significant coverage of the National League exists as well - I can find match reports on sites such as ESPN, which is abnormal for a league in the fifth tier. I understand the consensus, I just don't see why most National League articles wouldn't be able to pass WP:GNG as there's absolutely nothing different about the synthesis based on the level of coverage received by the leagues. SportingFlyer talk 14:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't but it does specifically state "top professional leagues". This is the fifth tier of english football and cannot really be considered a "top professional league". Consensus over time has been established through AfD that leagues that can be shown to be fully professional can also reasonably be described as "top professional leagues" from a global perspective regardless of the level that an individual competition sits within its own country's pyramid. As such, season articles for "non-league" English clubs need to show GNG and that cannot be done through primary sources or a synthesis of routine match / transfer reporting.
Fenix down (
talk) 08:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the key rule though, the subject needs to show GNG and primary / routine sources don't do that by definition.
Fenix down (
talk) 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Be it as it may, the consensus is arbitrary and completely ignores
WP:GNG. There's no reason a team that's professional (even if there are non-professional teams in the league) and well-covered in the media can't have an article about its season. While the sources are primary or WP:MILL, the rule here is there needs to be enough material in order for the seasons page to be more than just statistical, and even though this isn't at the moment, it could easily get there.
SportingFlyer
talk 15:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus from numerous AfDs (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 in additions to the one I cited above) is that in the case of football, being fully-professional is a requirement to pass NSEASONS.
Number
5
7 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - There is clear consensus that a league needs to be fully professional to pass WP:NSEASONS. The sources in the article are either primary or are routine match reporting / transfer talk, the likes of which are not sufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 14:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Salford City F.C. season (another article on a season at this level) has just ended with a "delete" outcome. Number 5 7 08:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oops. Missed commenting on that one - would've voted keep. SportingFlyer talk 17:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete There are a lot of citations, but they are all pretty much WP:ROUTINE and consensus of WP:NSEASONS is pretty clear, the season isn't a top flight season. Govvy ( talk) 11:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Should all of the minor league seasons in England be deleted as well? The National League gets sufficient coverage for one of these types of articles, which should be the test if it's not a top professional league, similar to university sports in the U.S. SportingFlyer talk
- Delete per nom and especially Fenix down who succinctly points out how the article fails WP:GNG, which is the only keep argument I see as it's evident that the article fails WP:NSEASONS. Ifnord ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Fenix down. Daask ( talk) 19:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete on account of subject failing WP:NSEASONS and then also WP:GNG. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:53, 31 July 2018 (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. Precedent aside, solid consensus here to delete. I am sympathetic to the GNG arguments, but not convinced. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
2017–18 Leyton Orient F.C. season
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2017–18 Leyton Orient 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)
Fails WP:NSEASONS as the National League is not a fully-professional league. For previous precedent, see AfDs like this, this, this etc. Number 5 7 21:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 07:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, fails WP:NSEASONS. 21.colinthompson ( talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006–07 York City F.C. season which is more recent than the other AFDs. Peter James ( talk) 22:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This is an incredibly semantic argument which ignores
WP:GNG.
WP:NSEASONS has no requirement for professionalism, as seen with the numerous college sports seasons in the United States. Furthermore the National League receives a high level of news coverage and most if all articles for the National League should be able to pass WP:GNG. It seems silly a professional team isn't allowed to have a season article since they got relegated into a league well-covered by the media.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus from numerous AfDs (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 in additions to the one I cited above) is that in the case of football, being fully-professional is a requirement to pass NSEASONS.
Number
5
7 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Be it as it may, the consensus is arbitrary and completely ignores
WP:GNG. There's no reason a team that's professional (even if there are non-professional teams in the league) and well-covered in the media can't have an article about its season. While the sources are primary or WP:MILL, the rule here is there needs to be enough material in order for the seasons page to be more than just statistical, and even though this isn't at the moment, it could easily get there.
SportingFlyer
talk 15:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the key rule though, the subject needs to show GNG and primary / routine sources don't do that by definition.
Fenix down (
talk) 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is very few seasons will actually be able to pass WP:GNG on their own - possibly only through history books written about the club? The cutoff line for the English National League is arbitrary, as is the consensus which establishes it, as nowhere in WP:NSEASONS mandates a fully professional league. The National League has been significantly covered for years in multiple reliable publications (some of which have the league as their primary focus), the majority of the clubs I believe are professional including this one, and is a fully national league, and I think it'd be possible to source this article without making one reference to the club's official website. I know this article will be deleted "as per consensus," but I am fervently against the consensus. For instance, if you were to redact which league the clubs played in, there is no reason this should be deleted and, say, 2017–18 Fleetwood Town F.C. season (in this instance, selected due to heavy sourcing from the club website) kept. Leyton even averaged more than 1,000 more people a game than Fleetwood. SportingFlyer talk 04:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, my specific argument is: NSEASONS does not mandate a fully professional league, and even then, the majority if not all National League-level season articles would satisfy
WP:GNG due to the level of secondary coverage of the league.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't but it does specifically state "top professional leagues". This is the fifth tier of english football and cannot really be considered a "top professional league". Consensus over time has been established through AfD that leagues that can be shown to be fully professional can also reasonably be described as "top professional leagues" from a global perspective regardless of the level that an individual competition sits within its own country's pyramid. As such, season articles for "non-league" English clubs need to show GNG and that cannot be done through primary sources or a synthesis of routine match / transfer reporting.
Fenix down (
talk) 08:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but it can still be done. There's a significant exception for notable amateur college sports in the United States due to the level of coverage, and the top professional league assumption is based on the fact that significant coverage of the league will always exist. Significant coverage of the National League exists as well - I can find match reports on sites such as ESPN, which is abnormal for a league in the fifth tier. I understand the consensus, I just don't see why most National League articles wouldn't be able to pass WP:GNG as there's absolutely nothing different about the synthesis based on the level of coverage received by the leagues. SportingFlyer talk 14:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't but it does specifically state "top professional leagues". This is the fifth tier of english football and cannot really be considered a "top professional league". Consensus over time has been established through AfD that leagues that can be shown to be fully professional can also reasonably be described as "top professional leagues" from a global perspective regardless of the level that an individual competition sits within its own country's pyramid. As such, season articles for "non-league" English clubs need to show GNG and that cannot be done through primary sources or a synthesis of routine match / transfer reporting.
Fenix down (
talk) 08:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the key rule though, the subject needs to show GNG and primary / routine sources don't do that by definition.
Fenix down (
talk) 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Be it as it may, the consensus is arbitrary and completely ignores
WP:GNG. There's no reason a team that's professional (even if there are non-professional teams in the league) and well-covered in the media can't have an article about its season. While the sources are primary or WP:MILL, the rule here is there needs to be enough material in order for the seasons page to be more than just statistical, and even though this isn't at the moment, it could easily get there.
SportingFlyer
talk 15:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus from numerous AfDs (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 in additions to the one I cited above) is that in the case of football, being fully-professional is a requirement to pass NSEASONS.
Number
5
7 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - There is clear consensus that a league needs to be fully professional to pass WP:NSEASONS. The sources in the article are either primary or are routine match reporting / transfer talk, the likes of which are not sufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 14:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Salford City F.C. season (another article on a season at this level) has just ended with a "delete" outcome. Number 5 7 08:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oops. Missed commenting on that one - would've voted keep. SportingFlyer talk 17:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete There are a lot of citations, but they are all pretty much WP:ROUTINE and consensus of WP:NSEASONS is pretty clear, the season isn't a top flight season. Govvy ( talk) 11:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Should all of the minor league seasons in England be deleted as well? The National League gets sufficient coverage for one of these types of articles, which should be the test if it's not a top professional league, similar to university sports in the U.S. SportingFlyer talk
- Delete per nom and especially Fenix down who succinctly points out how the article fails WP:GNG, which is the only keep argument I see as it's evident that the article fails WP:NSEASONS. Ifnord ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Fenix down. Daask ( talk) 19:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete on account of subject failing WP:NSEASONS and then also WP:GNG. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:53, 31 July 2018 (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.