Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 FK Sarajevo 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   no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

2011–12 FK Sarajevo season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violates WP:NOTSTATS. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." No attempt at sourced prose. Article only encourages similar unsourced repositories. C679 08:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following pages under the same rationale:

C679 08:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 08:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - all articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 09:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - article does not fail WP:NSEASONS which mentions only "top professional leagues" not FULLY professional leagues. Agree WP:NOTSTATS is an issue here, but no indication that this is not a notable subject, given that in each occasion the club was playing in its country's top flight, finished high up the league, is an established club in that division and qualified for continental competition. Needs sourced prose added not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – NSEASONS also provides that "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory". These articles do not fulfil this. Meeting NSEASONS is not about picking and choosing, but an article should meet the whole guideline. These ones do not. C679 20:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - keep per Fenix down. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how you feel WP:NSEASONS is met, in light of the fact there is no "well-sourced prose"? C679 05:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because NSEASONS says "should" not "must". Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument here. You agree NOTSTATS is an issue, and write that it "does not fail" NSEASONS, without providing any policy-based reasons to keep it. C679 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain in what way it's not met? WP:NSEASONS says Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.. This team is in the top professional league in Bosnia (note, that NSEASONS doesn't say fully-professional, just professional).  Sure, it needs improvement, and some more prose. But that's grounds to improve the article, not delete it. Nfitz (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I covered this in the opening statement., as of course this is the reason for nominating it in the first place. C679 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain it simply, for not so bright people like myself then. Your only issue as far as I can see, is that it's missing a bit of prose, which isn't a firm requirement in itself.  Surely your position then would lead to conclusion that article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - certainly needs the addition of 'well-sourced prose' but articles on notable subjects should be not be deleted for lack of sources within the page only if such sources can be shown not to exist. The way forward is to tag the page for improvement and encourage expansion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete database entries are in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (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.