Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. season

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

Article on a club season that fails WP:NSEASONS. This recent AfD on a club season article in the same league in the same season was deleted unanimously. Number 5 7 17:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Giant Snowman 10:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSEASONS as club is now playing in the fifth tier of English football, a non-fully professional league. Can in no way be considered a "top professional league" per the guideline. Perhaps during the course of the season sufficient significant, independent coverage will emerge to satisfy GNG but at the moment, given that the season has not officially started, there can, bu definition, not be enough. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following the precedent at Woking and the need to draw a boundary on season articles. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the precedent given was for a "too soon" deletion - hmm, though looks someone snuck in an earlier season after the AFD was started - and some reviewers such as myself had decided not to contest. The past consensus wasn't that the line was at the 5th tier - it was that the tier was fully national. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011-12 Colwyn Bay F.C. season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season. Also note that WP:NSEASONS is met; the requirement is "professional" not "fully-professional". Many (if not most!) of the teams in this nation-wide league are fully-professional. It's clearly a top professional league. Nfitz (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Three things to say on this keep vote:

There is and never has been any consensus that the fifth tier was the cut off point because it was fully national, I have no idea where you are getting this from bar some form of selective reading of a large number of AfDs. Even the most cursory review of the Deletion Archive would show clear consensus that fifth-tier clubs are not notable per NSEASONS and require GNG to be met.
I would note that both AfDs you cite above have had the articles subsequently deleted, so not sure what you are trying to indicate there, you have merely provided weight to the view that such articles at this level are not notable.
As noted above, consensus indicates that NSEASONS is not met. However, this is not really relevant as GNG is most important. Given that the season has not yet started, it is impossible to see how GNG could be met at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three responses

Consensus does appear to have shifted away - but at the same time, there are those that would spin it so that there is clear consensus that 5th tier teams are deleted, when this is not always the case.
They were deleted because they were 6th tier (or lower) articles. The AFD discussed that because they weren't 5th tier or higher, they were below the cut-off. No one contested this.
Consensus doesn't indicate that NSEASONS is not met. The teams are professional, and are top teams, that have plentiful national coverage - many, if not most are fully-professional. WP:NSEASONS is met. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment These (mostly more recent) AfDs have all resulted in these articles being deleted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, so if there ever was a consensus that these seasons were notable (and I can't find any examples of an AfD on one being closed as "Keep") it clearly changed several years ago. You are fully aware of the existence and outcome of these AfDs given your participation in this simultaneous discussion, so it's extremely poor form to ignore the context when presenting the argument you have. Number 5 7 07:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen 3 completed delete AFDs this year (ignoring a third Too Soon one). That's 3 out of hundreds if not thousands of 5th tier (and far, far lower) season article. I think claiming that there is a consensus is extremely poor form! I also think it's poor form to ignore that at least 10 articles are going to be clearly closed as no consensus in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season debate. Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I've linked to 11 AfDs with the same result above, which clearly shows there is consensus (and now there is a another to add to the list) – a handful of debates ending in no consensus does not take away from this – you are now clearly into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Secondly, the "hundreds if not thousands" claim is a blatant lie and you know it's a lie (for the benefit of the closing admin, the number of remaining fifth tier articles can be seen in this category). Number 5 7 22:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked beyond this year. But it seems the trend was to assume 5th tier was notable, then some pushed to move line to 4th tier, but failed, and then started AFDing some really, really bad 5th tier articles that were hard to defend, and are now trying to push the line further.
There are no lies, and it's yet another WP:AGF violation to make such groundless accusations. My comment is in good faith.
I reckoned there were at least 200, probably 300-400 - and perhaps more than I thought. Looking at your link there Category:Football Conference seasons by team is merely a subset of articles of the 5th tier and lower articles. It looks like there are over 90 there alone, and many are missing - (not tagged?). Simply looking at one of the 2 non-league teams I've supported Category:Newport County A.F.C. seasons there are over 20 tier 5 and lower seasons alone there that are not in the category you provided. That pushes to over 110 with one team alone. I'd think that the total then would easily be over 200 - but perhaps my past support and awareness of these pages has biased my view. Either way though, it's certainly not a blatant lie, and I think you need to aplogize. At worst it's an error. No one would suggest an honest mistake is a lie! Nfitz (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS - (after digging around for half-an-hour, just starting to realise how unique Newport AFC articles are - and Wimbledon, who I've had an interest in - only one that was new to me that I was seeing below 5th was Gateshead!) Nfitz (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first statement about not having looked beyond this year is either patently untrue as we have been discussing this all week on other AfDs (and you even took part in this one last year) or you are again suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT syndrome. And given your previous conduct over several years, I'm afraid I cannot buy the excuse that it was an "honest mistake". Number 5 7 07:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first statement is 100% true. I have not (in the last few months) looked beyond a year. I don't think I've looked at the Hyde AFD since we had it - lord knows how many years ago. I'm not sure why you continue to accuse me of lying; your behaviour remains horridly shameful; stop disgracing yourself with such unnecessary WP:AFD attacks. Yes you referenced it in other AFDs; that doesn't mean I looked at it. ~~

Delete – It has all been said above, it does not pass any notability guidline and it is not notable enough for an article. Qed237 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nfitz's points. Fully-professional club in a national league, barring a handful of teams. Coverage is just as much, if not wider in the National League than League Two. --Jimbo^[online] 08:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How can the coverage be wider when the season hasn't even started? The fifth tier of English football is an obvious NSEASONS failure: "top" and "fifth" are clearly not reconcilable. Therefore GNG is required. GNG cannot be satisfied by definition when the season hasn't started. Once it has finished it might do, just [[WP:TOOSOON|not yet]. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage on television, there's a lot more live National League games shown than League Two. --Jimbo^[online] 20:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 6 August 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.