Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester 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. No prejudice to subsequent renomination or userficiation. I think that this discussion tilted slightly towards deletion, there were  a number comments suggesting that while in general clubs of this level lack notability for a season article, this one might. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As agreed here and confirmed here, clubs lower than the Conference National are deemed below the notability threshold for season articles. Liamtaylor007 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I consider that we should show some flexibility in our decision-making in cases where informative work is being undertaken as in the case of this article. However, there is a lot of work to do to bring it up to WP:GNG standards. See Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season for a recent AfD decision. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Please note that the seven previous seasons also have articles and would need to be covered by this debate for consistency. See Template:F.C. United of Manchester. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – largely fails WP:GNG. I will reconsider if improvements are made. – Kosm  1  fent  19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As creator of the article, I have pointed out a couple of times already that the article is only just a couple days old. I haven't had nearly enough time to develop the article to where I would like it to. Two people here have already said that in currently doesn't meet WP:GNG standards, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the season is just underway. The article was created only three days ago, and there is way more that can be added to the article, if given the opportunity, that would greatly improve its quality.
 * And as I said on Talk:2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester season, I'd like to use the example of 1889–90 Sheffield United F.C. season. The reason for requesting an AfD for this article is "clubs lower than the Conference National are deemed below the notability threshold for season articles". However, the Sheffield United article is currently assessed as a good article, despite the fact that the team that season didn't even play a single league game that season. So exactly how "official" is the Conference National cut-off that was reached as a "consensus" in 2009 and 2010, when 1889–90 Sheffield United F.C. season (again, a good article), was created in May 2012?
 * As was stated on my talk page by, "The notability rule suggests that all clubs who have reached Conference National level and are currently playing their football at that level, can have articles for past seasons." This suggests that the notability of the individual articles themselves are based on the notability of the actual club. And isn't the notability of the club established by the fact that the article F.C. United of Manchester exists? And wouldn't that mean that, if somehow Sheffield United fell to the Conference North/South level, that the article would have to be deleted because they aren't "currently playing their football (above) that level"? Red Rebel 05 (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That all being said, I'm a bit hesitant on working on the article at all while the AFD is active. I still think the article should be kept, and I would work on improving it greatly if it is kept, but I don't want to do the work for nothing. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure if I can give an opinion or I should stay neutral, as a fan of the club I'm not sure how that affects "conflict of interest" etc. I would have been pro-deletion regardless if it were not for the fact that there doesn't seem to be a great consensus on this as another non-Conference National team season I nominated for deletion in August was kept (see Eastleigh mentioned above). Unless I'm much mistaken, FC United has a greater fan base and much more national coverage than Eastleigh ever receives. For example, the FA regularly report on FC United's progress through the FA Cup (see here, here etc.). They are also regularly featured on local, national (BBC, Guardian, Independent) and foreign news websites and media. They also have the 12th highest attendances of any non-league club  (thus far this season, despite rarely having more than 20 away fans). Just saying that as far as non-league football goes, FC United's situation is quite unique and maybe an exception should be made. Also, AFC Wimbledon, a team that was formed in similar circumstances (although they have of course since reached League football) have season articles stretching back as low as the Combined Counties League (see Category:AFC Wimbledon seasons).  Del ♉ sion 23   (talk)  20:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what I was referring to, as far as their regional and national coverage, but I didn't have time to dig up links. But like you said, there is a lot of attention paid to what they do in the FA Cup, and as far as non-league football goes, they attract a lot more fans to their games than a lot of Conference National games. I believe that you can make a strong care for an exception for this team because of the unique circumstances surrounding the club (as was alluded to in the AFC Wimbledon example), as well as the fact that (as said above) they do receive an unusual amount of coverage regionally and nationally for any non-league club, Conference National-level or lower. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Plenty of external sources have now been added, and seeing as it's only a couple of months into the season I have every faith that the article will grow. Despite being at level 7, FC United are an exception. They have as much coverage as any Football Conference side, as much as some League Two sides.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  16:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - looks impressive, but on deeper inspection lacks any real substance. Non-league seasons articles are not considered notable by WP:FOOTBALL and this certainly fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy - WP:NSEASONS states that team season articles without a well-sourced prose should be redirected to the team page, and this may be the right thing to do here. But I think we should move the article into the creators userspace, and if/when there is a well-sourced prose it can be moved back into main-space. Same goes for the seven other season articles about the same team. --Mentoz86 (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - while Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season was closed as non-consensus, Articles for deletion/2011–12 Boston United F.C. season who was nominated the day before, was closed as delete. The difference between those two were the well-sourced prose. --Mentoz86 (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE - A lot of people seem to be favoring this article being deleted on the basis of it not lacking any real content. Once again, I'd like to state that I haven't had any opportunity to work on it past what I've already done to it. The article was only two days old when it was listed for deletion, and I haven't been able to do the work to dig out the sources and begin to write any actual prose. All I'm asking for is an opportunity to do that. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's why I'm proposing to move the articles into your user-space, so that you can finish the articles there before moving them back into the main-space. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep(this one) - Yes they may be in a lower league than what's usually considered the cut off point, but i think some flexibility does need to be given in this case. FCUM are probably one of the most notable clubs in non league at the moment, and they receive a lot of publicity that most clubs would be jealous off. More people have probably heard of them than my own team despite over 100 year headstart! I would also add a comment to the creator though too, perhaps its better to focus on one article at a time on the main space or make them all in your own userspace and move them across when more substantive. This article looks promising with the tables/fixtures/maps and with it being only early on the season too it will obviously grow, however the other ones (while clearly young) offer nothing really bar a league table and if the AFD's were brought against them i'd have probably have voted to delete. Narom (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article as it stands at the moment lacks independent sources for anything other than attendance figures. Perhaps the most likely source for regular independent material is the main local newspaper, the Manchester Evening News. It carries exhaustive coverage of the League teams in Greater Manchester, plus larger Conference teams like Stockport and Macclesfield, but for teams further down the pyramid such as FC United and Droylsden, the depth of coverage is significantly reduced. Most of the MEN's FC United-related headlines are introductions to a general non-league round-up ( is an example from this week). This is below the level of coverage I'd expect in order for a season article to meet WP:GNG. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE I have added sources and a considerable amount of prose to the sections for the FA Cup and FA Trophy, as well as a small intro to the League section (much more to come), and re-arranged some things and cleaned it up. I would like to add way more links from more different sources, but I have so far added sources to The Grantham Journal and TheFA.com. Most of the sources are match reports and tournament draws, but I think it's a good start. And I think the prose I have written so far shows the potential for the article, once I'm able to find more sources. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would keep it. FCUM is quite a notable club relative to other non-league clubs. With exception to the clubs that have previously played in the football league in recent years, I would say it is probably the most notable non-league club. The club has attracted a high amount of attention since its formation, and has higher attendances at some matches than those at a League Two match. Usually, for a club this far down the football league system, I would vote delete on the basis of little notability. However, I believe an exception should be made, especially if this article is given time to improve further. Reddev87 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG, if Chester F.C. a club in a higher division, do not have a season article, then I don't see why FC United should. The content largely appears to be what you would expect in a league season article, with just the matches and a bit of prose added. NapHit (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your argument isn't a strong one. Your argument is pretty much "if Club A doesn't have an article, then neither should Club B". That's why I think you should look at the circumstances surrounding the clubs. As has been said by several people already in this AFD discussion, FCUM are a special case because of the attention they receive overall (not just within their league) compared to most other non-Football League clubs, including Football Conference clubs. And using the examples of good article 1889–90 Sheffield United F.C. season and 2002–03 AFC Wimbledon season, I don't think it's fair for the only criteria to be the division that the club plays in. (Sheffield didn't play in a league at all in that season; AFC Wimbledon played in the Combined Counties Football League at level 9, two divisions below FCUM.) I believe that FCUM is notable enough nationally (certainly regionally, in Northwest England), that they should be an exception. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically you don't have enough secondary sources to provide notability. The majority of the sources are the Evo-Stick League or the FA, they are not enough on their own to claim the article is notable. If FCUM are a special case as you state, then surely it would be easy to find secondary sources commenting on the club. The lack of these, suggests that is not the case and I stand by my argument that the article should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of the individual season articles? Is it not to show what happened during the season, such as match results, transfers, et cetera? I understand the importance of secondary sources to assert the notability of the club and, more specifically, that club's individual season, but it shouldn't be a bad thing if a lot of the sources are there to serve as sources to the club's results and their league standing. And ultimately, what does it matter where those come from? Wouldn't the official Evo-Stik League page and the official page of The Football Association suffice? Red Rebel 05 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We need secondary sources because according to WP:GNG:"for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." As secondary sources such as news outlets appear to be thin on the ground regarding FCUM's season, then in my opinion this article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. The purpose of the season articles is what you state above, but the purpose of wikipedia is to provide engaging accounts of events that are deemed to be notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information], thus just because we can document results does not mean it should be included, as that does not have encyclopaedic merit. On another note the other season artivles for FCUM should be deleted as well, as they also fail [[WP:GNG. NapHit (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that. So what qualifies as a "secondary source"? There are some in there, but because of the large number of sources for match reports from the official team website, the official league website, and the official FA website (which should be good enough at the least to prove validity of the match reports), they get drowned out. I do have sources from The Grantham Journal, Quays News, Mancunian Matters, The Hereford Times... The actual content in the article I feel is adequately sourced, which would leave the only issue being the one to establish notability. What websites would suffice? Red Rebel 05 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are not enough references in independent media to support the assertion that this subject is notable. Sure, there are references to say that all this stuff happened, but there are also sources on the internet that say that 85-year-old Bertha Jorkins broke her hip last Tuesday. – PeeJay 00:48, 12 October 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.