Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon 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 on batch action, unbundled renomination welcome. While editors arguing for deletion have pointed out that many past AfDs on football club season articles at the same level have resulted in deletion, there is disagreement on whether or not WP:NSEASON implies all such articles should be deleted. Then the discussion defaults to trying to apply WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE and brought up discussions about individual articles. So I'm closing this as no consensus on batch outcome, but individual AfD renominations on specific problems with content and sourcing of each article are welcome. Deryck C. 10:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 57 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 57 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]
      - 2011 Conference Premier play-off Final is already a standalone article. Or is that next for the chop? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL - I hadn't seen that. So a game from this season is noteworthy, but not the season? Surely that supports that the season itself is noteworthy! Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 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]
    - @Nfitz: It is not a featured article. It is a GA. There is difference. Normally being a GA would indicate the article has the sources required to pass GNG, but if you look at the review of the article in question; no comments were made by the reviewer (highly unusual) and it was speedily passed. As GA is a individual review anything can be passed so that doesn't mean it has adequate reliable sourcing. Normally incorrect GA promotions are picked up by others but this one clearly has not been. Has GA has formal delisting processes it would be easier for everyone if it was AFDed separately. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops, my error; time for some reading glasses! Though I feel that ALL the articles should be listed separately, given how contentionous deleltion of 5th tier and sometimes 6th tier articles are, especially when for the teams are bobbing back and forth into the Football League. I've only addressed the primary article that has been nominated, because it is so clear cut that it meets WP:GNG especially with the foreign coverage. It's too confusing to start trying to nominate contentious and different situations. Can I ask that you remove the other articles, and list them separately, when this discussion closes? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - On what basis should the article be delisted? Which criteria does the article fail to meet? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:17, 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 57 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]

You've misread the guideline – the bullet points specifically refer to college sports teams (note the colon at the end of the line starting "For college sports teams," prior to the bulleted list). Number 5 7 15:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But the only criterion, by my reckoning, appears to be that the team competes in a "top professional leagues". How does one define "top"? One could argue that Championship, Leagues One and Two don't merit that status, and therefore we could see hundreds of these articles (wrongly I would argue) nominated for deletion. Not relevant to this discussion perhaps, but it's an ambiguity that needs addressing. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The football WikiProject have always interpreted "top professional leagues" as referring to fully-professional leagues, i.e. not the Football Conference. Number 5 7 16:54, 1 August 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]
        As stated above, the New York Times article and also the Daily Mail article are not routine as they are not match reports. These were what I was referring to, not the BBC Sport match report. LTFC 95 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are talking about this, it is a brief history of the club plus some details about the play-off final match – nothing about the wider 2010–11 season whatsoever. The Daily Mail article is exactly the same – some background to the club and some detail about the play-off final game – again, nothing about the wider 2010–11 season. These articles could be used to justify the notability of the club (were that ever needed) but certainly nothing to do with the season article in question. Number 5 7 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, to summarise, the arguments in favour of deletion are (1) WP:GNG and (2) WP:NSEASONS. The arguments in favour of keeping are (1) not agreeing with the guidelines, (2) WP:HARDWORK and WP:LONGTIME, (3) a mistaken claim about the guideline that actually refers to college sports, (4) the fact that these clubs were previously or went on to become Football League clubs and that some past or future seasons of the clubs do pass the guidelines, and (5) claims of WP:GNG using news articles that are either WP:ROUTINE or don't actually refer specifically to the subject in question. Number 57 15:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the summary in your opinion. There is a game from this season that has it's own article ([2011 Conference Premier play-off Final]])! The media articles like you've dismissed that meet WP:GNG that only exist because of this season, demonstrates that WP:GNG is met in the opinion of others. At the same time, it's a bit problemeatic with these teams that bounce back and forth to the Football League, to have some, but not other season articles. In the case of Wimbledon, how come you want to delete a 5th tier season, but are happy to continue editing the 9th tier season - 2003–04 AFC Wimbledon season yourself? Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a summary from my viewpoint as an admin (certainly it's how I'd read this discussion if I was closing it). And if your final point is the best argument you can come up with, I think we're done here. My edits to that article were part of a series of edits to correct links to two other articles – I would have zero problem with that article being deleted too. Number 5
    - My final point is merely pointing out your inconsistency. If you think that's my main point, you should be deadmined, quite frankly! Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 16:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the inconsistency i think the guidelines for the fifth tier need looking into especially as in a couple of season it will be part of the English Football League system, the passion someone has for AFC Wimbledon is no different than someone with passion for Real Madrid, but nothing has been said about the 20 odd season pages on Real Madrid or Barcelona before they joined La Liga (some seasons they only played one match) or even the 18 season pages for Southampton before they joined the Football League? Why don't these fifth tier pages get stopped before the season starts? There are 10 fifth tier pages for last season! and lets be honest some of these pages are better than football league pages, not after an argument but wouldn't it be easier to let people add fifth tier pages rather than delete? Thank you Iantheimp (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What inconsistency? Almost all AfDs on these season articles have resulted in deletion, with a few ending up as no consensus (some of which have gone on to be deleted after a second discussion). You may well be right about what the future holds, but it doesn't apply now. Number 57 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You raise that, but a smarter mind than I noted that there have only been 3 AFDs for 5th tier season articles this year - and one of those was for a case of too soon. The other two were for teams that have never played higher than 5th tier and have since fallen back to where they typically are. None have had feature articles in foreign newspapers. The inconsitency is that there have only been 3 AFDs, and yet there remain hundreds if not thousand articles for 5th tier seasons - how is that not inconsistent? Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That there have only been three this year is not really relevant; there have been at least a dozen AfDs on these articles that have resulted in deletion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). If there is inconsistency, where are all the ones that resulted in keep? I can't find any. The "hundreds if not thousand articles" claim is simply untrue. Number 5 7 07:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that WP:NSEASONS references college sports and not association football alone makes the argument for deletion of all these articles unconvincing. Furthermore, I think the amount of interest and discussion that has taken place in favour of keeping these articles suggests there is a genuine desire to improve them and further demonstrate their notability. The fifth tier comprises of a large number of professional clubs and there is no reason why a professional club, such as all of the above which are included in this nomination shouldn't have a season article. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a rather misleading statement. The guideline mentions college sports as further clarity in this area is needed. Other sports are not singled out because the application of the guideline is obvious. Number 57 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As already mentioned above, WP:NSEASONS is not sport specific, but it only goes into detail of the guidelines of college sports. More clarity is needed for association football and needs to be revisited by WikiProject Football, specifically because "top professional leagues" can be interpreted differently and considering the format of the English football league system is currently under review. Furthermore, it states the articles should "consist mainly of well-sourced prose" which the Cambridge, Luton and Newport articles, for example demonstrate. The guideline is very vague and therefore encourages differences in the way it is interpreted, as demonstrated in this discussion. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it isn't vague – we interpret it to mean fully-professional leagues; here is a selection of AfDs from the past few years on a mix of Conference and other clubs that will hopefully make it very clear. Number 57 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Hyde F.C. season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Woking F.C. season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Macclesfield Town F.C. season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 F.C. Halifax Town season (2nd nomination)
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Hyde F.C. season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003-04 Aldershot Town F.C. season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Eastbourne Borough F.C. season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Woking F.C. season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 Grays Athletic F.C. season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 F91 Dudelange season
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 The New Saints F.C. season
        Like i keep saying the whole matter needs looking at WP:NSEASONS is not clear enough, we shouldn't need to interpret anything especially when WP:FOOTBALL applauds York City's fifth tier pages, this is why people start seasons as they go to the project page, what if i bring in WP:AUD the fifth tier receives national coverage! God help people if a semi-professional side win promotion this season and then decide to stay semi-professional i wonder if rules would change or would all fourth tier be deleted? Iantheimp (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You may keep saying that, but it is clear enough – the AfDs listed above are obvious proof of that – unless you can show us an equally large number of AfDs that resulted in season articles at this level being kept? As for what would happen if a semi-pro club went up, in all likelihood they would turn professional. If by chance they didn't, then we'd probably use our common sense to say that for all intents and purposes League Two remained a fully-pro league (we didn't disregard it when Dave Rainford was well-known to be a semi-pro player in the division). But this is all speculation, and you also have to remember that the rules would not apply retrospectively, so any seasons in which the league was fully-professional would still remain notable. Number 5 7 22:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's rather convenient that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011-12 Colwyn Bay F.C. season isn't included in the above list which was voted on by WP:FOOTY consensus that a club must compete in a national league, meaning Premier League to National League is notable and any regional leagues such as National League North or South and below aren't notable. On this basis, the fifth tier (Conference National, Conference Premier, National League) is considered notable. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't list it because it was on a club playing even lower in the pyramid. If your logic is correct, can you explain the results of the AfDs I have listed above? Number 5 7 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see what relevance your first sentence has to my above statement. Here is another AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season) that states "the cut-off point for individual articles on English club seasons is the Conference National". The 10 articles nominated here are all based on professional clubs that played at Conference National level which is a national league. Unless you can provide an archived discussion outside of an AfD that determined a new consensus that League Two is now the cut-off point, then none of the articles you listed above should have been deleted. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        But they were all deleted, which suggests the statement in the AfD you refer to either wasn't correct or pre-dates the current consensus. I had a look through the archive earlier and couldn't find any AfDs on fifth-level seasons that were closed as "Keep" – there were 12 that ended in deletion (many of which are listed above) and three that were closed as no consensus (one of which was later deleted when it was put up for a second nomination). Perhaps some people did think there was consensus that we should have season articles for clubs playing in national leagues, but when it was put to the test at AfD, it clearly didn't exist. Number 5 7 23:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And yet not a single article has been AFDed this year for a 5th tier team that's played in the Football League, despite there being hundreds if not thousands of such articles! Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        See here where everyone apart from you has !voted delete. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        (a) this one has just been closed as delete and (b) as shown in that AfD, there are not hundreds or thousands of such articles. Please stop trying to mislead other editors. Number 5 7 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.