Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Udinese Calcio 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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

2005–06 Udinese Calcio season

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

Another contested draft returned to mainspace without improvement. Zero in-depth sources from independent reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Serie A season, reached semis of Coppa Italia, played in UEFA Cup, definitely has sources, (such as ). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Disclosure: I'm the one who started the article. I think being one of the top 20 football teams in one of the top 3 football leagues on the planet makes the article practically inherently notable. Yes, I will improve it with sources and more information, but the crazy urgency shown by Onel (it's NOT an old article) would've been warranted if the subject was more obscure. This nomination feels almost comically out of place at this point in time. At least Onel did the right thing by taking it to AfD instead of draftifying again. Oh, and draftifying is among the most arrogant thing a Wikipedia editor can do.  O s c a r L  18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article is sourced only to databases. Fails GNG. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject - the season - directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. The above mentioned source is not about the subject of the article .  // Timothy :: talk  04:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  04:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're acquainted with football, but season by season articles for each major team (among the biggest in the world) is the standard. The fact that sourcing could improve does not detract from the fact that the Udinese season, just like all the other ones in existence, is notable by virtue of its subject. See here: "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements." It's not a case of "Other stuff exist" either, I am actually basing it on Wikipedia guidelines. Please, give me time to improve refs, I did not expect such a rushed action for something that is basically a staple in top level football club articles.  O s c a r L  07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Honestly, this one shouldn't even be a discussion. A top-flight Italian team which competed in a European competition easily garners SIGCOV to more than meet GNG. Online sources are available, including a number listed on the Italian Wiki. The article needs improving not deleting. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - as above. Another nomination where no knowledge of the subject has been shown and no research/BEFORE has been undertaken. GiantSnowman 11:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep/Draftify as per above this is a top Italian team and one of the top European and world at the time so clearly warrants a season article. This article is clearly in need of improving, not deleting. However, as this is almost 20 years after the season, I don't understand the pushback by to draftifying the article and improving it in draft space. Currently the article is a short lede, an inclusion of the ladder, and the squad. --SuperJew (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with draftifying an article that is (or should be) assumed to be notable enough is that it reduces the amount of editors who can help out with improvement. No one beyond the article creator is going to know about the draft's existence really. Also, I don't take kindly to one single editor undemocratically taking it off mainspace with no consensus-seeking discusisons beforehand. The nominator in question has gotten criticism for this. If you are draftifying at the speed and volume that the nominator is, then there will be a pushback from some editors. Communication and collaboration are important for the Wikipedia project, neither of which happened in this case.  O s c a r L  16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and I would support having the article in the mainspace if it was a recent season, but as it's over 20 years ago, I don't think having it in mainspace encourages too many editors to work on it. Regardless I am against deleting it. Regarding the nominator, I'm not such a big frequenter of AfD, but after this, just today I came across a bunch of bad nominations by them, so I can understand. --SuperJew (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Stevie’s argument above. REDMAN 2019  ( talk )  15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes article has issues and needs work, but AfD is not cleanup. Bad nomination. Govvy (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2023 (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.