Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 Derby County 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   keep. As far as the specific article under discussion here is concerned, it's clear that we now have a reasonable stub and consensus to keep it. This is not to necessarily excuse the behaviour of its original creator - the only reason this article is up to vaguely encyclopedic standards now is because others have pitched in to rescue it. Creation of contentless stubs to create busywork for others is disruptive, and the next step is probably to consider action against the creator at ANI rather than against the articles at AfD. ~ mazca  talk 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1996–97 Derby County F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is no content here only a listing of players. This is one of many that this user has created, although I'm only nominating this one at this time.

This creation cycle has been going on for quite a while and almost all of these articles are the same. They are literally just a roster of players with flags and positions.

These are stubs of almost no encyclopedic value (textbook WP:NOT), nor do they provide any special advantage for later contributors (over just creating the article from scratch). I would not be nominating if they were of stub class, but these are not. Shadowjams (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 04:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - article needs improving (references, expansion etc.), but not deleting. See 2009–10 Derby County F.C. season for the potential....GiantSnowman 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it needs text. Shadowjams (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I've made a mistake it would be taking it here rather than ANI, because these kinds of mass creations with almost zero content are disruptive, the least important reason being that none of them meet the inclusion guidelines by a longshot. I have no doubt that by the time this AfD is closed the article will have some menial language added to make it pass, or maybe, hopefully, turn into something interesting. I say that not because I think AfD should be a substitute for cleanup, but as an example of why your argument for keeping isn't backed up by my experience here.

To explain that, let's use the example you gave. In that case the original article started out like this and within exactly one hour was this. A full featured article with 30 references, two tables, text, an infobox, and meaningful interesting content (I've learned something about them). Your example was created by an editor that went on to fix up the article (it started out pretty good anyway), not go on to create another dozen (or in this case more) stubs of the next season.

That doesn't even begin to compare to the article I've nominated. I realize (and obviously support) that there's leeway given here for article potential, but it is articles for deletion, not topics for deletion or something else. It's about articles as they are or as they realistically might be. If it wasn't then there'd be no problem with someone going through any red-link listing and creating an article that had as much, probably more, content than these. My opinion is that you're assessing this topic, not the article. Because no reasonable editor could consider the current content to meet notability guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC) (this comment refers to the version as it was one minute before my comment was made)
 * Keep, even very cursory editing allows this clearly notable subject to be made into a passable stub article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep These sorts of articles can be expanded. Nothing wrong with creating stub articles to get things started.   D r e a m Focus  05:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize why you say that now, but my nomination referred to an earlier version (about 30 minutes ago or so), right before Jmorrison edited it, one that wasn't even stub quality. Shadowjams (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe the current version is now worthy of a stub, you can change your vote to keep.  D r e a m Focus  18:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   confer 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by User:Jmorrison230582 seeking assistance with its improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is pretty terrible. I couldn't even tell what sport it was about until I got down to the bottom and saw that it was classified as an English football stub.  That's kinda sad.  Unless this article gets a major cleanup, then I agree with the nominator that deletion is the only cure for this article.  The topic may well be notable, but the article in its current state pretty much needs to be started over from scratch.    Snotty Wong   talk 05:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete until the editor who created it can actually be bothered to write something rather than clogging up the Wiki with this crap. Before its recent "expansion" it didn't resemble a season article in any way whatsoever. Get some match results, transfers, anything interesting and just start again from scratch. It is slightly better since Jmorrison expanded it (although the references are very tangential and exactly one half of the prose is now POV) but I still can't see what advantage there is of having pages like this. Big  Dom  08:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete One of many articles that this particular editor creates and then walks away from.  This an example of the WP:Kittens type article, where someone brings a lot of cute little items into the world, even gives them names, and then leaves for others to take care of.   I have nothing against someone writing a complete article about the '96-'97 season of Derby County F.C., but the intent here seems to be to write lots of little stubs called "1996-97 _____ season".   Because there's no effort invovled, it'll be easy to move on to lots of little stubs called "1997-98 ____ season".  Sorry, it's not an accomplishment and nothing to be proud of. Mandsford 13:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a valid subject for an article - WP:FOOTY's featured content section lists a number of similar articles that have made it to GA standard. There's no reason why this one couldn't.  Bettia  (talk)  14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the appropriate forum for the valid concern raised here about this user's creation of sub-stub articles is WP:ANI, not here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the user has been given a fair warning on his or her talk page that that might be the next step. I think that you've done a great job in rescuing this article after the lone edit by its creator, and if you're a Derby County F.C. fan, then it's been a pleasure rather than a chore.  It's only fair that all rescuers be made aware that this is only one of about 20 similar cases so far of someone leaving something for others to rescue.  Hopefully, we won't see 20 more homework assignments waiting to be finished by someone else.  Mandsford 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I consciously held off from nominating all of them in batch, and predicted that an AfD would send people running to meet my pretty bare requirements for a stub, but there is a larger set of articles here that's at issue. I probably could have done this at ANI, but even after that issue was resolved, the issue I'm addressing here would remain. It's not perfect I know, but it's a toss up situation. Shadowjams (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, on the condition that... the article is improved to a minimum standard required for football club season articles. This means that we need a full list of the competitive fixtures played by the Derby County first-team in the 1996-97 season and a suitably long lead section. – PeeJay 22:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the first three lines of this article can easily fit into Derby County F.C.. nothing seems to warrant this spin off article. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject in need of expansion. AFD is not cleanup, and articles do not have a deadline.Vodello (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * and two wrongs don't make a right and a stitch in time saves nine. I think the guy got the message, which is don't leave a bunch of messes for other people to clean up.  Mandsford 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep club season articles are generally deemed notable; article needs improvement not deletion. Eldumpo (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so it is our firm policy to accept meagre contributions and nuture the resulting stubs. It is also our policy not to issue work orders to our volunteer contributors as they are not staff and we have no authority to do so. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Oh so many articles are in their infancy. To delete them all would be counter productive --Egghead06 (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - The last two keeps seem to be missing the larger point, but I guess I understand that a little. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2010 (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.