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

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]
I disagree with you; I don't believe it is routine at all. Articles do not routinely appear in the New York Times about 5th tier football matches!! Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 1 August 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]
Hang on - your not suggesting you plan to ask for the deletion of a featured article? Other than being a FA, how does that article differ from this one? Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 1 August 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]
If none of the above has any basis in Wikipedia policy, then why after almost six years since the articles were created are they only getting flagged up now? If they had been deleted immediately after their creation, then it wouldn't have been contentious to do so. However, since it has been left until this point and considering the amount of work that has been put into these articles, it is much more contentious to delete them. Therefore, I believe a compromise needs to be made, either merging season articles for clubs who have spent a short time outside the Football League together into one article or making suggestions within the articles to make them comply with WP:GNG. I don't accept that the list of season articles provide sufficient information as they only document a club's record in each competition and don't include information such as the players who were at the club etc. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LONGTIME and WP:HARDWORK are classic arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Number 5 7 21:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as still not enough to suggest their own notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clubs at Conference Premier/National League level receive much the same level of coverage to that of many Football League clubs, from both national and local media. We should bear in mind that WP:NSEASONS is not sport specific; none of the five bullet points seem to apply in any way to an association football club season. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid point that I'm completely in agreement with. BBC Sport has had a page dedicated to the Football Conference/Conference Premier/National League for as long as I remember. They also give just as much coverage of the National League as they do for League One or League Two. Furthermore, the National League is given equal status to the Premier League and Football League in terms of each club having a dedicated page on their website. Local newspapers don't only write/report on Premier League or Football League clubs, they are also inclusive of National League clubs. The National League doesn't receive the respect it deserves and there certainly isn't a statement within WP:NSEASONS that justifies nominating Football Conference/Conference Premier/National League club seasons for deletion. LTFC 95 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC website isn't particularly about each clubs season though and surely it is WP:ROUTINE source anyway because it ij just routine match coverage that many non-notable leagues receive worldwide. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much a misconception to believe that National League clubs only receive routine match coverage. I only gave BBC as an example to justify why the National League is just as notable as some of the leagues above it. Why else would they cover it on their website if it isn't notable? There are many non-routine articles that have been published previously relating to a National League club's season, an example of which was referenced above which is mistakenly being treated as routine. LTFC 95 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article referenced above is a match report, which is specifically cited at WP:ROUTINE as something that is routine coverage :/ Number 5 7 22:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]