Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011-12 Colwyn Bay 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

2011-12 Colwyn Bay F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does a club acting at the sixth level of the English football league system, warrant a stand alone article about a single season of that club? Their struggle for a place in the Northern Premier League makes, in my opinion, Colwyn Bay F.C. just notable. But not their season 2011-2012. This looks like WP:FANCRUFT. Night of the Big Wind talk  00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But surely if somebody is willing to keep the page up to date and active the page should stay. Fans can find lots of information from pages such as season specific pages. Although they are playing down in the sixth level it would be unfair to delete it because of its position. I would also like to point out that Colwyn Bay F.C. are playing in the Conference North and not in the Northern Premier League as stated above. You will also find that Boston United F.C. are playing in the Conference North but their season page is not up for deletion. This is true also with 2011-12 Eastleigh F.C. season. The 2011-12 Northwich Victoria F.C. season is not up for deletion and they are playing in the Northern Premier League, one below Colwyn Bay F.C..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Typical case of Other stuff exists. But lets stay the course and deal with this one first. Nominating the others can be done later, if necessary. Night of the Big Wind  talk  11:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the reason for all the other clubs having them? This is the same reason there is one for Colwyn Bay. Just because they are leagues below, that is little reason for it to be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the same as what is happening here: a fan writing a page about his club. Night of the Big Wind  talk  13:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Night if the club is notable by virtue their seasons are as well. Notability isn't temporary. In regards to season articles in general they are not fancruft at all. Edinburgh   Wanderer  16:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really a Colwyn Bay fan, just a football fan creating Wikipedia pages for reasonably well known clubs who don't already have a season page like many clubs do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability, all sources are from the Colwyn Bay official website. GiantSnowman 17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

^^ emmm...no they aren't....if you read the page you will find there are references from local newspapers and the BBC.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good heavens, that BBC-thingy is solely there because it involves Manchester City. They did not come out to cover Colwyn Bay F.C.. This is pure WP:FANCRUFT. Proof of that is the mentioning of the Bar Assistant, the Canteen Assistant, the Shop Assistants, the Turnstile Operators and the Programme Sellers. Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the pure reason that is on there is because it is on Colwyn Bay F.C.. Also I think you will find that the BBC link is not due to Manchester City. The BBC link is about the club maybe getting relegated, nothing to do with Manchester City at this point, so yes they did come out to cover Colwyn Bay F.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe consensus was reached in the past that clubs must compete in a national league (so for English football, from Premier League down to Conference National) for season articles to be considered notable.  Can anyone confirm this/point to any relevant discussions?  Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why have Boston and Eastleigh and Northwich and others lasted such a long time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete no real notability and as per a WP:FOOTY members consensus as Mattythewhite has pointed out. The others mentioned should be deleted too, the Boston version has no sources, Northwich has little and although Eastleigh has quite a few, little of them are secondary or significant. --Jimbo[online] 21:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Marrythewhite. It would be useful to include those agreed notability criteria about season articles in WP:FOOTYN. – Kosm  1  fent  10:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:FOOTY consensus and its failure of WP:GNG.  I would recommend the Boston, Eastleigh and Northwich articles being put up for deletin too.  Mattythewhite (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mattythewhite. I think that regional leagues are too low a level to justify season-by-season articles. The other mentioned articles should also be deleted.--EchetusXe 15:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Weak because I can't find any good arguments in Wikipedia policies to keep it, Keep because I can't find any good arguments in Wikipedia policies to delete it.Mentoz86 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:GNG, I doupt there is a stonger policy guideline than this. – Kosm  1  fent  19:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The club is playing in a regional league, isn't anywhere near becoming professional and most of the sources are from the club's own site. The ones that aren't only cover individual moments in this season, and therefore do not confer any sort of notability on the season itself. – PeeJay 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the key information on the stadium improvements into the main article. I see no logic in deletion and thus losing important content. TerriersFan (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (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.