Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division

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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division

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

No indication of WP:GNG being met. Little or no independent references. Season articles of 10th level of English football. I would imagine this is well below the cut-off line. Nominating four articles in total. C 679 05:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles are also under discussion as part of this nomination:

C 679 05:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I suppose, cut-off line for both seasons and clubs are exactly 10th level and for a few previous seasons all the (SEVENTEEN) 10th level league season articles are exist.Martinklavier (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. For these seasons (and many others) we have articles on all leagues at this level (see, for example, Category:2012–13 in English football leagues), so it looks like the cut-off line is level 11. If the outcome here is inconclusive, I suggest this should be discussed at WT:FOOTY. Number 57 08:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OSE. Are you offering any policy-based reason to keep these articles? C 679 09:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OSE is not the lazy, negative argument that some editors seem to assume it is – "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." As we have articles for all the other leagues at this level, it would be inconsistent to delete these ones. We don't have a specific notability guideline for league seasons, so there isn't really any policy to go on except WP:GNG, and I think there is sufficient coverage of the leagues to pass this – for instance, Birmingham Mail and Express & Star seem to have decent coverage of the Midland Alliance, one of the leagues in question. Number 5 7 10:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - One of the criteria quoted suggests level 10 is well below cut-off line for season articles. Just saying below cut-off line would suggest all three leagues which start at level 10 should have their season articles deleted. Well below cut-off line would suggest all level 9 leagues should also lose their season articles. This would leave only 6 leagues having season articles out of the present 20. Cut-off for club articles is below level 10; it should be the same for leagues' season articles.Drawoh46 (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I don't think the articles are that important and all three need some serious expantion and sourcing, but Number 57 & Drawoh46 have me convinced that these articles are useful and should be kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable." according to the wiki project football. As this leagues members are eligible for the FA cup it is notable Seasider91 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The league is notable but are 127 seasons of it each notable in their own right? C 679 05:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles need improving and referencing - not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2016 (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.