Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003–04 Shrewsbury Town 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. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

2003–04 Shrewsbury Town F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep WP:NSEASONS states that "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements" (my emphasis). It doesn't state that a season outside of a top professional league MUST NOT be created. This article is well written with plenty of prose, and would surely meet WP:GNG, and could possibly be a GA contender.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - meets the NSEASONS criteria in the sense that it satisfies "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose", however, a lot of the sourcing is just routine match reports from the BBC Spiderone  15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - what is significant here, where is the coverage? Yes the prose is well-written, but it's 90% match reports. GiantSnowman 16:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep What is significant? Maybe the fact they got promoted back into the Football lLeague! :/ And the fact that everything is sourced discards NSeasons really and that's a sub of GNG which technically this article does pass. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number   5  7  09:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, those match reports provide SIGCOV, meaning that this article passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at references in the article, meets GNG, with significant coverage for both having just been relegated from the 4th tier, and being promoted back to it almost a year later. Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like what Giant said as most of these are match reports which wouldn't be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If their was independent sources then I would be happy for it to pass but for now I don't think it's satisfies the critera. HawkAussie (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's significant independent national-level coverage User:HawkAussie of their promotion; The Independent, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, BBC. Nfitz (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with continuous national coverage. The only argument for deletion is that it "fails WP:NSEASONS," but NSEASONS is not an exclusionary policy, meaning an article can still exist if it passes WP:GNG. Also, the fact a team's match reports get written up every week by secondary sources is a clear sign that season was notable, even though we typically discount match reports as insignificant. I actually think demonstrating secondary written match reports is a requirement for these types of articles. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:26, 20 October 2020 (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.