Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1998–99 Willem II 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. North America1000 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

1998–99 Willem II season

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

No evidence of notability and abandoned article. Sakiv (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Hang on a minute. Yes, the article is abandoned. However, I find it very hard to believe there are no good sources out there for this season. It's about a season in the Dutch first tier and the club, Willem II, achieved second place, an exceptional achievement considering the usual dominance of Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord. WP:GDBN states: "Before nominating an article for Articles for deletion (AfD), please: […] You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." I see no evidence here that Sakiv performed the necessary research per WP:BEFORE. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you always want to lecture in every discussion?--Sakiv (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" WP:BEFORE is AfD 101. Unfortunately, this is the second nomination from you where I don't see evidence you performed WP:BEFORE. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The second time? You are the one who comments on the editor, not on the content. The article does not meet the criteria for encyclopedic articles.--Sakiv (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell me where I'm wrong. Is WP:BEFORE not required? Or did you in fact search for sources? I find it very implausible to assume there aren't any sources – for the reasons I gave above. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment These sources attest to the fact that the 1998–99 season was an exceptional one for Willem II: ("in the 1998/'99 season Willem II achieved the almost unbelievable"),  ("However, Willem II's most successful season is still 1998/99. Led by Adriaanse, the players from Brabant were the big surprise of the Eredivisie by finishing in second place. […] Due to the second place, Willem II was allowed to participate in the Champions League for the first time in club history a year later"), .  refers to it as "so glorious for Willem II". I'm sure people with access to offline sources can easily find enough to demonstrate notability. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the point of all this if the article lacks the minimum valid article criteria and is no more than 3000 bytes in size. Such article for deletion discussions is not a way to clean up or develop any article AFDISNOTCLEANUP.--Sakiv (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Robby's sources. GiantSnowman 18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the difference between this discussion and this AFD? Plus Robby brought in Dutch sources only.--Sakiv (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dutch sources are fine. GiantSnowman 19:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has been in poor condition for 9 years.--Sakiv (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * An article needing improvement is not a reason to delete. GiantSnowman 20:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So we shouldn't delete any season article just because it needs some improvement. Btw the unreferenced template has also been there for 9 years.--Sakiv (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, I don't see the point of this AfD. An article needing improvement doesn't mean it should be outright deleted. Nehme1499 11:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - "no evidence of notability" is clearly untrue, as the article indicates that the team finished in second place in the highest level of football in the Netherlands, a major footballing nation, which is obviously a massive claim to notability, plus being abandoned is not a valid reason for deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment same arguments over and over again. The article is in poor shape and that is a valid reason in itself.--Sakiv (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a valid reason. WP:RUBBISH "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option." The article is short but clearly not "harmful". Robby.is.on (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The creator Imlikeaboss has a history of created articles that he does not work on after creating them. He makes merely one edit and does not return to it. I am never required to do the steps you mentioned, What_Wikipedia_is_not. I do not want AfD to turn into an arena of debate between you and me. This is the second time that you are trying to express an opinion that is the opposite of what I am putting forward in hundreds of bytes.--Sakiv (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody forces AfD nominations on you, they are indeed not compulsory. If you want to nominate articles for deletion, however, you need to follow standard WP:BEFORE procedures. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You should pay attention to what you say, Avoid personal remarks. This is the second discussion in less than a month that you've been using to AfD to clean up so-called "articles". WP:NOTSTATS.--Sakiv (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I've expanded the article with the articles I linked to above. There should be plenty of offline sources also. The season is very clearly notable. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Willem's season is certainly significant. I'm glad it this AfD has brought the article's attention to editors which have improved the article to being good enough. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. Kante4 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There is plenty of room to improve the article even more than it is now. Thanks to Robby.is.on for the updates. Season articles do need to built more on prose than statistics, but hey, I really don't see much wrong here and there appears to source out there to improve this. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not look abandoned to me. Not at all. Plus WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence of notability? Since when has finishing second in the Eredivisie and setting a club record for best result been taken as lack on notability? REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep another ridiculous deletion nom, amongst dozens of others.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2022 (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.