Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 Hereford United 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. Reading and closing these AfDs would be a lot less painful if people would just stick to debating the merits of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2002–03 Hereford United F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per the decisions at Articles for deletion/2016–17 Woking F.C. season, Articles for deletion/2009–10 Grays Athletic F.C. season and Articles for deletion/2016–17 Torquay United F.C. season, articles for teams playing in a non-fully professional league have been deleted as non-notbale, unless they otherwise pass the general notability guidelines. None of these Hereford or Dagenham and Redbridge seasons appear to do so - note in particular that under reliable source policy, notability needs to be shown beyond general news reporting - none these articles show this. Note that I have listed these as what I consider to be 'low-hanging fruit' - there is a separate discussion to be had for articles on seasons in which these clubs won promotion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages because they cover the Conference National seasons with articles for these two clubs, excluding the years in which they got promoted:



Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  10:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  10:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  10:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all. There is longstanding consensus at AfD that only clubs that play in a WP:FPL get season articles per WP:NSEASONS. All these articles fail WP:NSEASONS as well as WP:GNG. -  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  10:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep all. There is longstanding discussion at AfD that professional clubs that play in nation-wide professional league get season articles per WP:NSEASONS. All these articles pass WP:NSEASONS. In addition in the recent decision at Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season the bundling of different teams in the same discussion created issues, and there appears to be some consensus that they should be treated separately (1 discussion for Hereford, one more for Dagenham). Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With regards to bundling - that wasn't a consensus, that was a closer's comments. This is very different from 2010-11 AFC Wimb: that bundled 11 clubs together, this bundles 2, with articles from a few seasons, of clubs in similar situations. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all per the aforementioned consensus (see these previous AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). Nfitz is well aware of this consensus as he has been involved in several of the debates, but unfortunately chooses to lie and mislead other editors with claims like those made above. Number   5  7  23:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Lie? No lie's here. Perhaps an error, and if so I'll apologize; but that's not a lie. But violating WP:AGF is a far worse WikiSin. Please apologize for violating one of the basic tenents of the project. Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Re-read and made minor edit to previous comment. Sorry, rushing too fast. I'm far more disturbed by the quick rush to WP:AGF! I'm going to have to go to WP:ANI if that continues. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The reworded claim makes no sense, but the claim that they pass NSEASONS remains untrue as shown by the list of cited AfDs. And as I've told you several times previously in other discussions, any GF you had was lost several years ago when you started behaving problematically around football-related deletion (some background here). You do not start with a clean track record any time a new discussion starts – given your track record, I do not believe for one second that it wasn't a deliberate error or attempt to mislead other participants or the closing admin. Number   5  7  07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that Neither nor  make any further posts on this page? You've both made your points. This isn't a call for a ban - you can both chose to ignore me if you want, but it's more of a friendly request
 * I'd said I'd stay out of this, but I realise, I've left this comment unaddressed. My comment is clear, there are some old discussions, including at AFD, where the assumption was that the cut-off was the 5th tier not the 4th tier. WP:NSEASONS simply says Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. Is this league professional - yes. Is it a top league - yes, it's national. The article meets WP:NSEASONS. Perhaps my earlier statement didn't fully sum up my thoughts. Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The question for other editors is to decide whether there is an inherent notability of season articles for professional clubs in the Conference (now 'National League) of English football, which is a non-fully professional fifth tier league. My belief, given previous approaches on Wikipedia, is that they're not, unless they otherwise meat the general notability guidelines. Nfitz clearly believes that they are. Let's let more editors respond. I follow up by suggesting that whatever the outcome, we should go to both or either WP:NSEASONS or WikiProject Football to establish a clearer consensus. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, dealing with this is getting extremely tedious. Number   5  7  11:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'll stay out of the discussion as well, if N57 does as well. I'm tired of dealing with editors who should have been banned years ago, for frequently violating WP:AGF. I've never in my life tried to deceive or mislead other participants or the closing admin! I'm shocked that another editor would follow a WP:AGF violation with a WP:AGF violation! Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, could you explain your logic as to why Hereford's is up for nomination as oppose to Gateshead, AFC Wimbledon and Newport County of the same season - who were all playing levels below? I really don't understand the selective nature of this AfD. And let's avoid using lazy cop outs like WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Jimbo[online] 21:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment per Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season, there is precedent for season articles to be discussed individually. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and - please note your two comments together! I chose these articles as a compromise between flooding the AfD with debates (and/or the rather slow process of listing all articles seperatly) and the suggestion at the AFC Wimbledon debate that we don't combine too many together. I didn't read the closing admin's comments as a suggestion that all future seasons should be listed separately (perhaps  might like to comment if that was his intention); rather, his closure was a comment on that specific listing, but also a warning against listing too many articles together. I chose these seasons quite deliberately as both D&R and Hereford are clubs who have competed in the Football League since promotion from the Conference, and were fully professional for these seasons: this was a clear point of contention at the AFC Wimbledon debate. I saw the clubs and seasons listed as roughly comparable, and they cover a similar timeframe. I note that no-one so far has made any comments which suggest any one of these seasons stands out from the others --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all They're about seasons involving a non fully-professional league, so not enough to pass WP:NSEASONS. Joseph2302 21:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all - the fifth tier of English football is nowhere near, the "top professional league" level required by WP:NSEASONS. A review of the WP:FOOTY Deletion archive will show clear consensus that for English football the cut off point at which clubs are deemed notable enough for individual seasons is the fourth tier as that is also the lowest tier that consensus holds is fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - note that Articles for deletion/2016–17 Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. season has just closed as delete. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep all these teams competed at a level where their coverage will see them pass WP:GNG. Difficult to go into detail in a bundled discussion, but I suppose that's the idea. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I resent that last comment. These articles were very carefully curated to fit together, as I've twice explained, and you've not responded to. I ask that you presume good faith here; this was a deliberately and carefully chosen set of articles. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your explanation made little sense. The Wimbledon AFC called out listing different teams like this, and you just did the same again, simply to save yourself the effort. The articles have been here for years, it's not like there is any rush to get rid of them. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure I see the issue with bundling these specific articles, they are all inherent WP:NOTSTATS failures. can you perhaps show GNG by adding some sourced prose to at least one of the articles? Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying that my explanation made little sense is different from claiming that I was doing this to manipulate - I've no problem with disagreement :)! As I've explained, my judgment was that listing 2 teams together was very different from listing 10 teams together. I wanted to bundle because I wanted this discussion to allow editors to comment on this category of articles broadly, rather than to get too stuck on the specifics of one club; and yes, I was looking to save effort - I don't see a problem in that. I didn't read the closure of the Wimbledon deletion debate to see it as a rejection on bundling full-stop - I saw it as a legitimate response to a debate which clearly brought too many clubs together. For this deletion discussion, I chose 2 teams who both spent periods of time in the Conference in the early 2000s, before being promoted to the football league. This is because at the Wimbledon debate, there was a clear question over whether to treat clubs which have spent a period of time in the Football League differently to those which have never been promoted beyond the conference (contrast Gateshead and these two teams). I carefully looked at the seasons and saw no claims to notability in any of them; as noted, I very specifically didn't chose the seasons in which these teams were promoted, as I recognize that these seasons are potentially notable and will need a more thorough discussion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete First, one of my pet peeves is the word "clearly"  Nothing is clear, including this discussion.  But given all of the above (and I've read all of it), and despite the fact that I am not intimately familiar with the subject-specific notability guidelines for sports seasons (I've always found the subject-specific guidelines to be somewhat contrived and a convenient way of skirting WP:GNG), I am not seeing sufficient argument or evidence that this particular season warrants a standalone article.  (And as a quick aside to the warring parties: we go have an essay called Don't remind others of past misdeeds which comes to my mind. , .  Just sayin', boys.)  KDS4444 (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The seventh tier is not a fully professional league, meaning for example no players from the club would pass WP:NFOOTY (unless they previously playes in a different club at a much higher level). I do not see any evidence that the articles pass WP:GNG. Thus, I do not see why they should be kept. All needed info can be merged into the articles about the club and about the division.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , the articles in question relate to teams playing at the fifth tier, not seventh........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you are right, thanks for correcting me. It does not change my argument though.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2016 (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.