Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:22, 24 July 2016

2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the team wasn't playing in a WP:FPL; also fails WP:GNG. All those refs look good but they are all WP:ROUTINE (transfer announcements and the like). Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

2010–11 Cambridge United F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Crawley Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Darlington F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Grimsby Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Luton Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Mansfield Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Wrexham F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the WP:NSEASONS failure. I enjoyed reading the claim that it was Cambridge's 98th season playing in the Conference National though. Number 5 7 11:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though they are all failures according to the rules, maybe the rules need re-assessing, the fifth tier is majority professional and what is going to happen when the Football League expands in the next few years are these pages going to be valid? Not trying to be awkward but just hate seeing peoples hardwork and passion deleted, but rules are rules i guess. Iantheimp (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iantheimp: No they wouldn't pass NSEASONS when the 5th tier turns pro as it based on the status of the league the year the season happened not the current or future status of the league. -Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - non-notable per WP:NSEASONS, fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per WP:NSEASONS, long standing consensus, as observed in more detail here is that clubs in non-fully professional leagues are not notable enough for their own individual season articles. Furthermore, there is nothing in any of these articles that would satisfy wider GNG, as, essentially without exception the articles are either:
Stat dumps that do nothing other than list results and league tables

Are sourced entirely from primary sources, i.e. the clubs own website

Rely heavily on routine match reporting which long-standing consensus agrees is insufficient for notability as this sort of journalism occurs even at very low, local levels.

Fenix down (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got as far the first reference on the first page [1] looks like it meets WP:GNG to me - if being promoted to the Football League for the first time ever isn't notable, I don't know what is. Not sure this should be done en masse. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a match report, which (as pointed out twice already in this AfD) falls under under WP:ROUTINE coverage and does not contribute to the article passing WP:GNG. Number 5 7 16:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A report of a match, where the team was promoted to the football league for the first time in their history is most certainly not routine. There are numerous other articles documenting this aspect of the season including [2], [3]. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it is routine. By all means, if you believe that specific match is notable, make the case for 2011 Football Conference play-off final to become a standalone article, but there's nothing to suggest that the club's wider season is of note. It is of course documented in 2010–11 Football Conference and List of AFC Wimbledon seasons anyway, so there's really no need for a separate article. Number 5 7 08:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, why isn't the featured article of 2010-11 York City F.C. season mentioned in the above list? Iantheimp (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it is a GA I wanted to give it a separate nomination because it could be more contentious. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. Routine match reporting isn't enough and if an individual event is notable enough, it should be covered in a club history article. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the above are fully professional clubs and the majority of which are in the English Football League at present. A number of these articles are notable for their achievements, specifically Crawley being promoted to the Football League for the first time in their history, AFC Wimbledon being promoted to the Football League for the first time as their phoenix club, Luton reaching the play-off final, Wrexham reaching the play-offs, Darlington winning the FA Trophy and Mansfield finishing as runners-up in the FA Trophy. Furthermore, a lot of the information included in these articles is difficult to find since the majority of club websites removed a lot of their historical information relating to previous seasons and now only include articles from 2013–14 onwards. In my opinion, it is wrong to delete articles with information that isn't easily available and include archived web pages. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above has any basis in Wikipedia policy though. Number 5 7 17:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 *'''Delete''' all of them. Routine match reporting isn't enough and if an individual event is notable enough, it should be covered in a club history article. --[[User:Super Nintendo Chalmers|Super Nintendo Chalmers]] ([[User talk:Super Nintendo Chalmers|talk]]) 08:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' All of the above are fully professional clubs and the majority of which are in the [[English Football League]] at present. A number of these articles are notable for their achievements, specifically Crawley being promoted to the Football League for the first time in their history, AFC Wimbledon being promoted to the Football League for the first time as their phoenix club, Luton reaching the play-off final, Wrexham reaching the play-offs, Darlington winning the FA Trophy and Mansfield finishing as runners-up in the FA Trophy. Furthermore, a lot of the information included in these articles is difficult to find since the majority of club websites removed a lot of their historical information relating to previous seasons and now only include articles from 2013–14 onwards. In my opinion, it is wrong to delete articles with information that isn't easily available and include archived web pages. [[User:LTFC 95|LTFC 95]] ([[User talk:LTFC 95|talk]]) 11:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
+**None of the above has any basis in Wikipedia policy though. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 17:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)