Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1999–2000 Sunderland A.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. No arguments for delete other than nomination, a growing snowball of keeps thereafter. Mandsford 18:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1999–2000 Sunderland A.F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced article about an arbitrary season of an arbitrary football team. Contains virtually no information. Wikipedia is not a sports archive. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is one of a series of articles about English (Premiership) football club seasons - see Category:English football clubs 1999–2000 season. The only "arbitrary" thing about it is its selection for deletion. I agrre that it needs some text and references adding, but that has never of itself been grounds for deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Precedent is that articles about seasons of football clubs are acceptable for inclusion. This one needs more work than most, but sources are relatively easy to find. I just added two to start us off. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per this policy Notability (sports). Stifle, you know way, way more about this than I do obviously, so I'm not exactly questioning you here, but you routinely say that Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or a sports archive in nominating articles for deletion.  I cannot find a precedent or Wikipedia policy saying this...I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but it's just that "almanac" and "sports archive" are really vague terms to me.  I have a lot of older sports almanacs and Wikipedia already contains 100 times the sports information as these almanacs.  As a result, saying Wikipedia is not a sports almanac just doesn't mean a whole lot to me - it's just far too vague to understand.  Can you clarify with a Wikipedia policy or a past precedent?  Thanks! Bds69 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IINFO item 3. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say that the article shouldn't exist, just that it shouldn't be entirely statistics. "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." So all we need to do is rewrite it to have more context and it'll be OK. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. It seems, as applied to this particular article, to not apply.  That particular item is concerned with readability and sprawling lists of statistics.  While the article is definitely bad, you can't really say that's it's not readable or a sprawling list of statistics. Bds69 (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The content is pretty much non-existent, but the subject is certainly notable. The article just needs a lot of work. – PeeJay 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notability (sports).  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – An article on a Premier League club's season definitely figures to be notable. There should be plenty of sources available to help build a nice article.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: But clean it up. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Week keep As a season article for a Premier League club this would appear to be notable per Notability (sports), although it is in dire need of sourcing to help establish notability through WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article could use with some expantion, but is certainly notable enought to merit inclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It may be a rubbish article, but it is notable. — Half  Price  15:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, an article on a professional top level club season is certainly notable. --Carioca (talk) 20:05, 5 September 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.