Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Stockport County 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

2011–12 Stockport County F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the team was in the fifth tier and didn't do anything exceptional such as gaining promotion or winning a title that year. REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 10:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 10:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Over two hundred citations and you still say no evidence of notability! Are you sure there isn't a little ikkle bit of notability there!?? Anyway, I think I would be more an abstain vote, I am neither for or against it's deletion, as Redman pointed out, it fails NSEASONS, but GNG? It's all very routine, but it looks all correct, so... Govvy (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ROUTINE / WP:NOTNEWS - transfer news and match reports and stats. Where is the significant coverage? GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - where's the significant coverage of many team seasons in League One or League Two? Do you think, for example, that 2011–12 Burton Albion F.C. season got more in-depth coverage than the article being debated?  Yet that one would get a "per NSEASONS" free pass because they were in League Two rather than the Conference....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and feel free to nominate for deletion if you believe it's not notable. GiantSnowman 11:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I'm neutral here. There is some non-routine coverage but I'm not sure there's enough. There is this lengthy Independent article and then some more local coverage about Sale Sharks moving out of their stadium and getting a loan from the council due to financial difficulties. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number   5  7  12:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Too many of the 200 sources in the article are primary, but even when you remove them this clearly passes WP:GNG with every game played and transaction receiving media coverage, making WP:NSEASONS irrelevant. We need to stop deleting season articles that pass WP:GNG because of a bad policy. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Yes there's a lot of sources and the article is well written but I don't think there's consensus that there are sufficient sources presented discussing the Season as a subject in itself as opposed to a synthesis of routine match reporting. Either way there is still no clear consensus.
 * Weak delete Looking the references over a good portion of them are primary, otherwise trivial, and the whole thing comes off like ref bombing. Also, the Review and Team sections are written in an extremely convoluted, newsy way. If you cut them out or otherwise clean them up to fit Wikipedia's article standards there wouldn't be much left to the article though. That said, I'm on the weak side because maybe someone could chop it down to the few good sources and get rid of the newsy cruft, if so I think the article is probably salvageable, but until that happens I'm leaning more on the delete side. Especially since this season is already mentioned in the main Stockport County F.C. article and there's no reason a little more about it couldn't be added. So this is really an un-needed, way overly detailed and referenced content fork. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There still hasn't been any argument that this detailed article fails WP:GNG (all of the games were covered by the BBC, the season news was covered by Manchester area papers) apart from the fact it's not from a league covered by WP:NSEASONS, which isn't exclusionary, especially since other AfDs from the same league are trending keep at the moment for this very reason. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A well-written article with plenty of coverage and more than just a stat-dump (compare with the Burton Albion article, cited above). Easily meets WP:GNG and with a bit more work could become a GA or better.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced, and notable. Even if a team played badly, constitutes no WP article?  Mr. Heart  (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The relist rationale is flawed because it assumes the season has to be discussed as a whole as opposed to being discussed consistently over the course of the event. The season clearly passes the "was consistently reliably covered by media" test. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most sources are primary, but there are also multiple secondary sources. Thus, as also exposed by a user above, if to remove the primary sources, the article will continue to meet WP: GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lugnuts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2021 (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.