Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 U.S. Lecce 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

2010–11 U.S. Lecce season

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PRODs. These articles are for lower table teams that had uneventful seasons (won no silverware, did not qualify for European tournaments, etc. Simply put, there isn't notability here. Also, the articles have not been updated since August.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If notability depends on significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, then they're notable. The season of any club in Serie A, the top division of Italian football, is covered to death, not just in terms of routine match reporting but also in analysis of how their season is progressing, what they're doing right and wrong, what they should be doing, both on the field and off. Though I do sympathise with the nomination, in that it annoys me when editors go round in the close season creating season articles for every club regardless of whether they'll have time or inclination to keep them going.
 * Don't think the Sampdoria article should have been bundled with the other two, as the deletion rationale doesn't apply to that article. Sampdoria competed in Europe in 2010/11 for the first time in 20 years, in the preliminary rounds of the Champions League, and then in the Europa League. The Europa League section hasn't been updated, but the Serie A matches are up-to-date.
 * At the moment, the content of the other two adds nothing to the encyclopedia, although they deal with a notable subject. I'd suggest a practical solution would be to redirect them to the club article. Then if someone comes along who actually wants to update either of them, all they have to do is undo the redirect and they've got a decent basis from which to build a decent article.
 * What this comes down to is Keep Sampdoria, Redirect Lecce and Genoa. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Serie A teams are notable enough for stand-alone season articles, no matter what they achieve. We even have a task force for this area of work - see WP:SEASONS. &mdash;BETTIA&mdash; talk 08:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. &mdash;BETTIA&mdash; talk 08:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all - As I said when I removed the prods, these articles need improving, not deleting. – PeeJay 12:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Serie A seasons are notable; articles need improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 14:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all. As much as I dislike season articles with little or no referencing, these are notable and need improving. Argyle 4 Life  talk  21:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all – Season articles for top-level teams are generally notable, according to WP:NSPORTS. All three teams are in Serie A, meaning that they meet that standard.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue here is that they might qualify for being articles, but no one is writing them.
 * U.S. Lecce has never had a XXXX-XX U.S. Lecce season article before.
 * U.C. Sampdoria has a bunch, most are horribly incomplete.
 * Genoa C.F.C. is on it's third, and the first two are horrid (lacking even dates).
 * There simply is no quality here. Articles are started inconsistently, barely maintained, and left incomplete. No one is going to go and fix all of them, and really no one is ever going to go looking for them (if they did, what they would find would not be helpful anyways.) If you all are so keen on saving these, fix them please, because they are embarrassing now.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though they are not updated since ages and just look "bad" there is no reason to delete them as those are season articles from serie A teams, so certainly worth an article. Kante4 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It qualifies for an article, but no one is ever going to make it into one. Even if the arguement that it's not notable falls through, this will be incomplete - misinformation - forever. I don't see any volunteers who are going to try and fix it.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn I disagree with this, but the proper venue now is the village pump. I have proposed something there, at the policy page, FYI. I will be nominating other seasons for deletion soon though, per them failing "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory." at NSPORTS.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  02:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 S ven M anguard  Wha?  02:42, 22 April 2011 (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.