Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 F.C. Halifax Town season

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 F.C. Halifax Town season

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

Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: plenty of precedent for having season articles for Conference Premier clubs; they get loads of independent coverage in reliable sources like BBC Sport, The Non-League Paper, Non-League Daily, Soccerway etc. Referencing could be better here but the coverage does exist. BigDom (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous consensus here and here, amongst many others. If it's not a team in a fully-pro league (i.e. outside of the Football League in England) then it does not merit a season article. Giant Snowman 10:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the majority of Conference clubs have their own articles, why Halifax Town should be different I don't know. Why can clubs like FC United have their own articles for counties leagues but an ex-league side can't? Leo1802 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, club does not play at a level anywhere near high enough to satisfy WP:NSEASONS. First !Keep vote not relevant per NSEASONS, any significant events in a given season can be covered in sourced prose in the club article. Second !Keep also not relevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My opinion is there is no need for the FC U of M season articles either, but that is a separate AfD. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is my vote not relevant per NSEASONS? That "guideline" (which is frankly useless – the first bit is just a rehash of the GNG and the second a free pass for college sports) states that articles can be created if there is enough coverage to write an article with a decent amount of prose, not just stats. My point was exactly that; using the sources I listed you could write quite a lot of prose. BigDom (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant in my view because Halifax do not play in a "top professional league" and consensus, some of which has been indicated above is that for English football, "top professional league" is Division 2 or above. Also, you are not correct to state that it says articles can be created if a decent amount of sourced prose is written, what it actually says is articles that are created need sourced prose, that is something completely different. Perhaps if this proves a record-breaking season for Halifax or something else happens that sees their season getting substantial coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE then I can see a case for a GNG pass and the creation of an article retrospectively, but at the moment I am not aware of any events like that which would warrant a separate article. Fenix down (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess we just have different interpretations of a very ambiguous guideline. If we're only having season articles for record-breaking campaigns then >99% of season articles should be deleted, including those of the top teams since they are probably the definition of ROUTINE. BigDom (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's more for teams below Division 2 that there should be something inherently notable about a specific season that occurred to warrant a separate article, there is already consensus that teams above div 2 can have their own season articles, although I wouldn't disagree with your comments re ROUTINE. To me any non-championship / cup-winning season at any level is routine, but consensus says otherwise. Fenix down (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "top professional leagues" and "professional league", and I doubt League One and League Two could be called the former. Should we then go ahead and delete all those season-articles? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per BigDom and Leo1802. I thought consensus at WT:FOOTY was that season articles for clubs playing in national leagues (so the top five tiers in England) are considered notable? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has always been that season-articles at the fifth tier in England are notable, and the AfD linked above by GiantSnowman confirms that, as those are about clubs that played below the fifth tier. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on another AFD someone queried my refernece to the League. I am not a football expert. I would take the view that it is legitimate to have artilces on clubs quite a long way down the tiers. However, articles on seasons for clubs should be confined to the top four tiers, and likewise on their regular first team players. If the taskforce wish to carry this donw to tier 5, I am not going to object, provided they will enforce this, by ensuring that all season-articles are regularly maintained and articles that do not qualify according to these criteria are deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Season articles should only be allowed for clubs in fully pro leagues. Number 5 7 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines says this? It can be (and has been) easily shown that there is enough coverage to meet GNG, the single most important set of guidelines for notability, for club season articles in leagues outside the professional divisions. BigDom (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of them do, so the decision is left to editors' opinions of where the notability threshold should be. The coverage is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. Number 5 7 08:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the important parts into F.C. Halifax Town. There is no reason to flat out delete all of this, but this team is too small to need a season by season breakdown. If they won the season, I could see an exception for a team this size to have a spinoff for the winning season. Technical 13 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.