Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1956–57 Bahraini Premier League


 * 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. Unlikely to attract sufficient support for deletion with any subsequent relists. Merge discussion can continue on talk pages if desired.  A  Train talk 21:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

1956–57 Bahraini Premier League

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSEASONS: the Bahraini Premier League is not a fully professional league per WP:FPL. These largely unreferenced season lists for a semi-professional league fail WP:NOTSTAT and don't show any hope of meeting WP:GNG. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC) (edited: 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 23:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete All as per nom. Also wikipedia is not a stats directory.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 03:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.
 * Delete All Fails WP:NSEASONS and as above Wikipedia isn't for stats. Merge and Keep So appears I have being interpreting NSeasons wrong so have struck my vote. Reading the below I do believe a whole lot of seasons (before 2008/09) should be merged into the one article seeing as they only have the one reference too then the later ones that contain more information, those can have their own individual article.  NZFC  (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy keep Keep, but I am considering whether merge or not. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC) These articles are league seasons articles not a team seasons ones, so please see WP:SPORTSEVENT not WP:NSEASONS. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) per Number 57. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read both WP:NSEASONS and WP:SPORTSEVENT again as these are clearly seasons of football leagues and not sports events like bowl games or NFL playoffs. NZFC  (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NSEASONS says:

Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.

For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage): I do not see something about league seasons. Do you find something about this? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable.
 * A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable
 * A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.
 * For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g. Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline).
 * In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.
 * Speedy keep Nominator has misunderstood WP:NSEASONS – it's for team season articles, not league season articles (its correct application is for AfDs like Articles for deletion/2016–17 Woking F.C. season). We have thousands of articles on league seasons that aren't fully-professional (just have a look at 2016–17 in European football (UEFA) for a start – many of these leagues are semi-pro). You may want to reconsider your !votes.  Number   5  7  12:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominator may have reference the wrong policy, but is there the existence of a policy that says seasons for leagues that are not top-tier get articles like this? And this still falls under WP:NOTDIR as a stats directory, so I'm going to stay with delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But this league is currently top-tier. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:FPL, the Bahraini Premier League is not fully professional, which is the standard used for football-related articles. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although this tournment is not fully professional, they need to keep as too many tournments are not fully professional and they also have league season article. 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18 have enough references. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Without appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, can you explain why all these should be kept? WP:GNG states there needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". One reference to goalzz.com definitely isn't "enough references" to meet that standard. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just watched these article again, I think before 2008–09 should be merge into one article because these article all lead to one source, but after 2009–10, these article should keep because I think these articles are vauleable and most articles have enough reference (including league table source). Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think these articles are vauleable See WP:VALUABLE for an explanation why that argument should be avoided. most articles have enough reference Simply having references isn't enough to keep an article, it needs to be shown that the references convey significant coverage independent of the subject per WP:GNG. Do you feel the references do that? -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the rest of your !vote seems to be based off of WP:OSE. Put WP:NSEASONS aside, that seems to be a red herring for you, why should Wikipedia host these largely unreferenced season lists for a semi-professional league? If they're properly sourced and pass WP:GNG, sure, but I don't see these coming anywhere close to that. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is a valid argument for keeping articles when others of similar stature exist; as far as I'm aware we have season articles for virtually all top divisions (see the UEFA template above) – there's no reason to single out Bahrain for deletion, potentially other that SYSTEMATICBIAS due to the lack of available sources in English. The red herring comment is poor – NSEASONS was originally your only deletion rationale, yet it's clearly an invalid argument. Professional status is entirely irrelevant here – it's only used to determine notability for players, managers and club season articles. Every one of these articles I checked has a reference (the RSSSF). Number   5  7  16:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, OSE is not a valid argument because we are not discussing those other articles, we are discussing the Bahraini Premier League seasons. It is entirely possible that some, most, or all of the other articles you reference should also be deleted for similar reasons. I have no idea because I haven't evaluated them. (It's also why OSE shows up in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Regarding NSEASONS, you're arguing based on a technicality (team vs. league) when the same rationale applies, in that "season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory." A single reference to the RSSSF does not qualify as meeting notability guidelines. If there are other sources I'm not seeing that do show notability, please, provide them. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well we'll have to agree to disagree; OSE is clearly a valid argument here IMO considering that we have top division season articles for virtually every other country (note the comment at WP:OSE: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."). And the claim that my NSEASONS argument is a technicality is a nonsense; the guideline is only there to refer to team seasons! Anyway, I've made my point and don't want to waste any more time on this, so I'll let other editors comment and the closing admin decide. Number   5  7  16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * However, you haven't explained why you feel OSE is being used "correctly". In other words, why do you think we should consistently provide lists of this nature rather than consistently exclude them? Out of curiosity, I want to take my query a step further: why do you feel league seasons should be treated so differently than team seasons? I provided the rationale behind WP:NSEASONS in my previous comment, do you not think these season lists meet that rationale? There isn't any meaningful prose in any of these lists—certainly not well-sourced prose. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It lack of in-depth coverage in English does not mean it did not have in-depth coverage in Arabic in order to pass WP:GNG. As i know English football had dig way too much to the tier 10 counting from the top, and they definitively not pro and the Bahrain top division have much more coverage than those English lower tier league in their respective native language. Matthew_hk   t  c  17:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? For example, the Arabic Wikipedia article for the Bahraini Premier League does not offer much as far as references go. I'm really happy you know English football, but let's stay on task here. What's being nominated is not English football. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know the database of back issue of Arabic newspaper of 1950s, but typing ""الدوري البحريني ", "الدوري البحريني الممتاز", the google show up the fixture and result. And looking at the search result it is readily available, for example (by Al-Wasat) and this by Sky News Arabia. 19:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Newspapers published in Bahrain offers several Bahraini newspapers, that might be a good place to start. What you've posted helps establish that the league exists, which isn't in question. However, I don't see those links as significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Should you be the one to go through 5,820 results of "site:alwasatnews.com" and "الدوري البحريني " to prove inside the search result, which not all of them really about the league, but if it existed, they All were not significant coverage? Matthew_hk   t  c  19:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't analyzed all of those results in great detail, but I would presume most of it would be WP:ROUTINE coverage, which is not sufficient basis for an article. Should I be the one? No, because I'm not the one making these claims. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep FPL has nothing to do with this, it's about players and managers, not about leagues themselves and their seasons. Enough sources exist for this TOP league and deleting it would mean just systemic bias and discrimination. Linhart (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect all of the artiles going up an including the 1996–97 season to Bahraini Premier League. There isn't enough coverage or content to secure notability for these articles. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But acticles after 2009–10 season is different from before 2008–09 ones. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as these are sub-pages of the clearly-notable Bahraini Premier League, notability shouldn't be a factor. Verifiability would be; if there is truly no coverage of this league the pages should be deleted.  Based on the amount of coverage at 2016–17 Gibraltar Premier Division I assume reliable sources will exist for the Bahraini league as well, though probably in Arabic.  If this is held open another week I will try to find some (despite not speaking Arabic); I personally feel the links by  should be enough, at least for recent seasons. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.