Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Columbus Crew 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. SNOW keep (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

2007 Columbus Crew season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSEASONS has been redirected to main team page but has been reverted. Should be redirected per policy. Amortias (T)(C) 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - article does meet WP:NSEASONS as this is clearly a top professional league. While WP:NSEASONS encourages and recommends the use of prose, it doesn't require it. The article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm suggested its redirected not deleted. The fact that its top flight and eligible for an article doesn't mean an article that is purely a list of results should be maintained, the guidelines you are advising should be used to keep it as it is generally notablealso say it should contain prose or be redirected. I see no exceptions for top tier clubs.Amortias (T)(C) 01:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not say should contain prose or be redirected; it merely recommends if prose can't be added. There is no reason that prose can't be added. Would you redirect 2016–17 Cardiff City F.C. season? Nfitz (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is a breakdown of the AfD logic. In any other type of article, it is the duty of those who argue for keeping it to demonstrate that there are sources that make their argument for notability tenable. If it can be expanded with well-sourced prose, what are the sources this can be done with? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this any different than the precedent confirmed today at Articles for deletion/1988–89 Juventus F.C. season? Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

*delete - per nom. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  01:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC) sorry, should've been redirect per nom. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  01:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the article could definitely use some improvement, it should not be deleted per the longstanding consensus that club seasons in national top flights are notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect as the guideline says, season articles should consist of well-sourced prose or be redirected. There is consensus for outcomes like this, too: Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team. I have no idea where this supposed "top flights" exemption comes from, because the guideline sets the prose requirement for all team season articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourced prose can be created, therefore improvement and not deletion/redirection is the proper course of action. Every MLS team is eligible for season articles per established precedent, consensus, and WP:NSEASONS. Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 07:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 07:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NSEASONS states "those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created". There is huge amount of potential for expansion, the match reports alone would be enough to create a substantial amount of prose regarding the club's progress throughout the season. Article is ripe for expansion not deletion. Kosack (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Jesus Christ this is the season for a top division soccer team which meets WP:GNG. This is as stupid as nominations get. Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Just needs someone to work on it for a bit and it will be fine. Passes WP:NSEASONS so it shouldnt be deleted. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - yes it's poorly written, yes it needs improvement but it's notable and passes WP:NSEASONS.  Dr Strauss   talk  12:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Clearly passes WP:NSEASONS. Why was this even nominated? Stop wasting everybody's time and close it. From that page, "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." That's very different from a college team, like mentioned above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I took these comments to heart and marked the article as needing improvement, and posted on the talk page what those improvements are. I don't blame User:Amortias for reading the WP:NSEASONS guidelines too literally - they say if it's just prose it should be redirected.  In this case, I feel the guidelines are too stringent, as it is common sense that this is good info about a notable team that will not fit in the main Columbus Crew article, and we see this also with 1988–89 Juventus F.C. season.  The guidelines should be more like "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. Articles with just statistics should be marked for improvement, and sections added where prose can improve the article."
 * Keep per all above. Team season article in a top-level national league. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep article is pretty bad but deletion is not cleanup. Article needs some expansion and more references but by and large it meets WP:NSEASONS. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Should have used RFC for redirect per WP:BLAR. B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   09:04, 18 February 2017 (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.