Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Leamington 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   delete. v/r - TP 01:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

2011–12 Leamington F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is merely a list of results per WP:NOT. Only sourced to the League's website, which is of course primary. Also, a team playing at such low level, whilst notable in itself, should not have a season article as even if coverage was aviailable, any possible sources would either be primary or very minor local publications. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - unreferenced and no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Amended from 'Keep' to a 'Comment' thanks to Black Kite (t)'s contribution.

I would be happy to see it go, but I think it's important that it's done according to clear and consistent guidelines.

The PROD proposal preceding this deletion proposal read: "The club is not Conference National or above meaning it fails notibility for an individual season article." -- implying that this was a formalised consensus on notability. I have found no evidence that this is the case.

The page falls under the influence of WP:FOOTBALL which has its own notability guidelines at WP:FOOTYN. The team is objectively notable by those criteria, since it plays in the national cup. I would be sympathetic to the assertion that, with 761 entrants in the FA Cup, that criterion is too broad; but currently the page says what it says.

The page follows a template used by many teams, and provided by WP:FOOTBALL at WikiProject_Football/League_season. If WP:NOT precludes this kind of page, then surely that should apply at every level of the game?

The reference to the league's web page, while primary, would appear to me to be the most appropriate one. It provides evidence for the facts, but not, I agree, for notability. If secondary sources are really a requirement, it stands to reason that local newspapers, and the national Non League Non-League Paper could be referenced.

May I suggest that WP:FOOTYN be updated such that it provides sufficient guidance, whereupon this page, and pages like it, can be deleted with little ceremony (a link to the relevant paragraph in the PROD proposal) --Ukslim (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue is WP:FOOTYN. With such cases, we have to take them on their own merits. As it stands, the article is effectively unsourced and also fails WP:NOT.  I suppose it is technically possible to write such an article, but in the vast majority of cases the sources would necessarily be trivial.  If one thinks about it, this is logical.  Where I live there is a Level 8 football team, which has its own Wikipedia article.  I could write a season article based on the local newspaper's match reports ... but WP:N contradicts this; "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage".   Whereas you'll find for league teams, such articles are often sourced to significant sources such as the BBC or national newspapers.  Personally, I wouldn't have any of these articles, because I think they all fail WP:NOT, but I suspect I'd be in the minority.  Anyway, wouldn't this be better off summarised in a paragraph in the team's main article? Black Kite (t) (c) 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I take your point re local press/sports coverage, and I've downgraded this to "comment". I maintain that there should be a clearly communicated cutoff point, and WP:FOOTYN seems to be the place to put it. I don't think (e.g.) 2011–12_West_Ham_United_F.C._season should be deleted, even thought it is "merely a list of results" (and transfers). But how low in the league system should we go? The PROD alluded to Conference National being the cutoff; it's arbitrary but it's as good a place as any, but it should be made explicit somewhere like WP:FOOTYN. I assume that the reason these are not merged into the team's main mage is that they are voluminous, intended to be kept for posterity, and intended to accumulate over time.--Ukslim (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -It is sourced there is one match report per game. I Searched and checked and can find two more match reports per game although do not see they are any better than the ones that are their already although at least they are not club ones. To me there is no clear consensus within WP:Footy as to whether these are notable or not. Some see it as Conference National some like i think its an arbitrary limit. For me it is a keep until consensus is determined. I also have looked for further sources and could add a full section of transfers with sources not just the club ones. I am willing to do this but only if its agreed its worth saving. Edinburgh   Wanderer  20:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG, which requires independent third party sources with substantial coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 17 October 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.