Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 D.C. United Women 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

2012 D.C. United Women season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PRODed the article, with the reason being "season that fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG", which was removed. Stated reason was "League was basically professional by this point, meets NSEASONS". I don't know if there's a separate consensus for this league but it isn't included in WP:FPL, so I'm not clear as to how/why this meets WP:NSEASONS. With the only citation listed being the standings from that season, WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Jay eyem (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per contested PROD. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - please don't just cite the prod, since everyone else doesn't have it immediately to hand and it makes it tricky to discuss it and use it to justify your !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 *  Keep per WP:GNG. Refs added. Hmlarson (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not really sure how WP:GNG is satisfied from these sources. Pretty much Almost all of the new sources constitute WP:ROUTINE (specifically sources 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7). The Sauerbrunn signing and the name change wouldn't be routine, but I don't see how they indicate notability of this season. Jay eyem (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment For me, the fact a number of routine sources from major publications exist show that routine coverage of the season existed, thereby making it notable "by the sum of its parts." I'd make a different argument for almost every other type of article on Wikipedia, but a sports season shouldn't need multiple feature articles to be notable - continuous routine coverage should be fine. SportingFlyer  talk  19:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I really do not understand this argument. WP:FOOTY already has an absurdly low bar regarding assumed notability, and the notion that you can string together multiple instances of routine coverage to create assumed notability sounds like original research and synthesis to me. Jay eyem (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't quite meet GNG, with sources like this appearing positive but actually being upsettingly brief. If can find one or two more then I'll be happy to change my mind... GiantSnowman 09:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Meets GNG per the sources provided, and probably NSEASONS too, per my de-PROD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Should GNG apply? The seasons page basically fails WP:NSEASONS as club did not play in a fully-pro league. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge the keep per WP:GNG, merge to 2012 D.C. United season. I just re-read WP:NSEASONS which doesn't preclude seasons for teams in not top professional leagues from having season articles. It just means they have to pass WP:GNG, whereas a top professional league would be presumed to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  19:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment as with the other AfD, I particularly oppose merging due to the nuanced nature of the ownership and intellectual property concerns involved. The team only has a loose affiliation with the MLS franchise D.C. United, and does not belong in its season article. Jay eyem (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom Comment I maintain that deletion is the correct decision here. Those arguing in favor of keep are by and large not explaining how the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. The one argument that does try to explain how it meets GNG is essentially a WP:SYNTH argument, i.e. that numerous instances of routine coverage somehow makes the subject inherently meet GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage and the sources that aren't don't actually demonstrate notability of the season itself. The season fails WP:NSEASONS's presumption of notability because the team did not play in a fully-professional league as listed at WP:FPL. The proposal to merge to the relevant MLS team season would also be a poor decision because, despite sharing the same name as the MLS team, the teams do not share any ownership and only have a very loose affiliation. While there may not be as much of a precedent for women's seasons that fail WP:NSEASONS, there is an extensive precedent for men's seasons in the same situation being deleted (some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I just don't see how the article in its current state can reasonably be argued as keep. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're the nominator. You can't !vote again. You're free to comment, but please strike your second !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As I stated in the other AfD, AfDs are not a vote, so it doesn't make a difference if I "vote" twice since it is my arguments that make a difference. Also, the AfD was relisted, so its entirely appropriate to re-emphasize my points. I will make it more clear that I am the nominator, but I'm not striking the entire comment. Jay eyem (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to strike the whole comment, I'm just asking you to strike the bolded delete !vote as you already !voted. You are, of course, free to comment again, but not to !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This literally does not make a difference, but I'll do so. Jay eyem (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number   5  7  14:22, 17 June 2018 (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.