Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League 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. Sources in the article clearly support GNG that go beyond routine match reporting / transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS which are the agreed guidelines for season articles for clubs Spiderone  18:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets GNG which takes priority over whether it is an FPL or not Spiderone  13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  18:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There needs to be a wider discussion. There are a number of similar articles in this category. Why is this one been singled out. Djln Djln (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to bundle all the other Melbourne Victory W-League articles in here? Spiderone  20:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And to, answer your question, although every W-League individual club season article fails NSEASONS, some of them do look to pass GNG. I am nominating this one on its own because it clearly fails WP:GNG and doesn't seem to have potential to pass GNG Spiderone  20:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to bundle all the ones deemed not notable and have a wider discussion. As you say, some are more notable than others. It will save a lot of messing about. Djln Djln (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure how this fails WP:GNG - there are multiple sources from independent reliable sources - Melbourne Leader, Herald Sun, Canberra Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Newcastle Herald, The Women's Game (FTBL - formerly FourFourTwo), Geelong Advertiser, ABC News, Sun-Herald --SuperJew (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:NSEASONS, the article "consists mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players". The guideline doesn't offer fail criteria in terms of competition level, just examples of competitions that will likely garner significant coverage. Hack (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Dougal18 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment As the nominator has decided the article is notable and should be kept, can the nominater request to withdraw the deletion request and/or an admin speedily close this as a keep? --SuperJew (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, don't think it qualifies for a speedy keep per point 1 of WP:CSK. Hack (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Point seems important to me anyway so not striking it. --SuperJew (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG/NSEASONS – astounded that this was nominated for deletion. Demokra (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep and personally I discount the reflex !votes from the 'usual suspects' at WP:Footy. Invariably these are based on a dogmatic interpretation of their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS rather than any proper analysis of the matter at hand. There are also question marks over the conduct and capability of the nominator, which I have raised in more detail in the related discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2020 (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.