Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1991–92 Kilmarnock 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Contested redirect. Simply listing books, without giving enough information to meet WP:VERIFY, is not proper sourcing. With current sourcing, does not meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the nom's claim, the article actually properly cites everything and books are completely valid sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * One of the books I have used as a reference, the Rothmans Football Yearbook is now known as The Football Yearbook:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_Yearbook
 * You will note from the article that the book contains statistical information on the previous season's Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League, as well as selected historical records for each club and all major competitions.
 * The Book has been published every year since 1970.
 * Based on the above, I feel that this book would be regarded by any British football(soccer) statistician as a reliable, independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * In addition, a substantial number of newspaper references have been added since the article was first published therefore I think there are sufficient sources for you to reconsider. Hytrgpzxct (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's hard to view notability as the sources are offline, but based on the titles they appear to be ROUTINe and I am not convinced there is sufficient evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Review of the current Yearbook here with additional media reviews:
 * https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-utilita-football-yearbook-2022-2023/headline/9781472288363
 * Further articles here:
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5524695/Football-Yearbook-shelved-Sky-end-support-revered-almanac.html
 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/03/21/rothmans-football-yearbook-bible-british-game-need-saviour/
 * https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/6354677/the-sun-world-famous-football-year-book-with-sponsorship-deal/ Hytrgpzxct (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has over 50 offline references, including a news reference for almost every single game! This looks very highly likely notable to me, especially considering they played in the Scottish First Division. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As is the way with football in many countries, please note that the Scottish First Division was not the top division in Scotland. It was (and still is) the second division. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Still, this looks very likely notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also plenty of coverage in Newspapers.com's limited Scottish paper collection. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - given the coverage about the events of this season in multiple newspapers as evidenced above, we can definitely say that sources exist and a decent article can be made from this Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:No original research. There is no evidence that the season itself has been discussed in detail in any of the sources listed. It's hard to assume the many offline refs cover this topic in detail when all we have is a statistical table with no prose. To me this looks like a classic case WP:SYNTH in which coverage of individual games has been spliced together into an article on the entire season. In effect this is original research. What we need is clear evidence of in-depth significant coverage of the season as a whole to demonstrate that the season itself passes WP:SIGCOV; not just merely of coverage of individual events within the season. Until we see some textual evidence in a prose section of the article using these offline sources in a way that its clear these offline sources have in-depth coverage of the 1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season as a whole (ie retrospective comments/quotes/analysis about the entire season) I am not seeing a strong argument for keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The notability of season articles, from the many discussions relating to them that I've participated in, are from coverage of the year's games; articles discussing the team's season as a whole are not required. What proves notability is that each of their games have coverage (Though, actually, we do have sources covering the season overall in the books, it seems). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is completely not true BeanieFan. Read WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This applies to all articles; including this one. No exceptions. We need sources which address the "1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season" "directly and in detail" to prove WP:SIGCOV. It's disturbing to me that this very fundamental rule is not readily apparent to you as a long time participant in AFDs and prolific writer on sports content on wikipedia. Coverage of the parts does not equate to coverage of the whole, and if we are going to write about the whole we need to use sources which contain coverage of the whole and not just the parts. Otherwise it's WP:OR. 4meter4 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * From the many season article deletion discussions I've participated in, that's not how it works. Having tons of coverage on the parts is sufficient to pass GNG. As for your OR point, we've also got several books discussing the season as a whole, and so actually, even if your point about the part/whole was correct, we've still got enough coverage for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then those hypothetical decisions were made error and didn't follow our written policies. However, this is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and is not valid here at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that the community's consensus is that such coverage is sufficient towards notability relating to seasons is not an OSE argument; it appears that you are the one who is in error. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OUTCOMESBASED arguments are also listed in arguments to avoid. Claiming past "community consensus" without evidence doesn't mean much; particularly when there is no record of a recognized consensus at Articles for deletion/Common outcomes or in our policies on sports teams and their seasons. Even if you were to find a few past examples at AFD, cherry picking a few representative AFDs on the fly is not a guarantee that it is a representative sample of past discussions, and doing so would be an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Claiming a community consensus exists at AFD and is a common outcome actually requires an official organized conversation where community input occurs, a consensus is reached, and then voted on and approved before it is officially recognized at the Articles for deletion/Common outcomes list. So no I don't think you are right and I don't think you can make that claim. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment An athletic season in team sports is a collection of games. In the case of particularly notable teams, each game may receive SIGCOV, but we don't allow articles on individual games unless there is something exceptional about the game (e.g., a championship game).. Instead, as a reasonable editorial judgment, we have opted to bundle the coverage into season articles. This is a sound judgment that avoids the proliferation of articles on individual games and allows us to present the information in a more coherent fashion in the context of season articles. I know nothing about the Kilmarnock F.C., and the sources cited are off-line. Accordingly, I offer no opinion on whether this particular article should be kept, but the decision should not be made on the basis that there is abundant SIGCOV, but that SIGCOV is focused on the constiutuent parts of the season (i.e., the games) rather than an overview of the season as a whole. Cbl62 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And what written policy are you basing that on? In any other topical area on wikipedia where there is an overview topic as the main subject of an article we require significant coverage of that named overview topic in reliable sources; and not merely sources on parts of the topic. The reason for this is to prevent WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I would argue that editorial decision to bundle coverage of individual games into articles on seasons doesn't supersede our core policies at WP:No original research and WP:GNG. We can not have a collective article on a sports season without sources that directly cover the entire season with in-depth coverage. With no sources of that kind, we are essentially doing original research/synthesis to build an article and not just merely fleshing out gaps in the coverage of the season through the supplementary use of sources on individual games. It would be like writing an article on the human body by only using sources that address individual organs or cells but never looked at the whole body or the body in larger systems. There does need to be at least a couple sources about the season as a whole to demonstrate that this isn't original syntheses. We can't just ignore policies because its editorially convenient.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, per 4meter4. I also doubt it is at all common for individual games to receive GNG coverage that complies with NEVENT and NOT, since the vast majority of game coverage is primary and/or fails NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage of the overall topic. Also see WP:NOTDATABASE. BruceThomson (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2023 (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.