Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Tercera División


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Tercera División

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At this AfD the article for the 2011–12 season of Tercera División the was deleted as a non-professional football competition failing WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. The same rationale applies for the following seasons of the same league, where no attempt at prose has been made in any case. C679 15:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

35 related articles under the same criteria:

C679 15:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all - In no way is the Tercera Division a "top league" as mandated by WP:NSEASONS. Furthermore there is essentially no sourced prose in any of these articles, a clear contravention of NOTSTATS. Looking at the various articles on the Tercera Division it looks like there are a large amount of statdump articles such as this and these which probably ought to be reviewed as well. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Do it, i'm tired working for nothing Scaufape (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the above editor has contributed greatly to the article, and this vote appears to be sarcastic frustration, more so than a belief it should be deleted. Paradoxically, the editor has continued to improve the article since making this comment. Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the edits from the author since the AfD nomination have only updated the unsourced statistics. It would be misleading to suggest this has resulted in an improvement to the article. C679 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all per WP:NSEASONS. Note to nominator, please try and bundle in more bite-size chunks in future ;) GiantSnowman 18:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – sorry about the large chunk, the cut-off isn't arbitrary though, it's the whole era of it being the fourth level. One was already deleted, to set precedent, so I figured it is simplest just to do them all together, since the same criteria apply in uniform manner. CHOMP. C679 22:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Retain all - you are destroying a key building block of the football project. It is so very sad. I see little point to contributing to a project that destroys such good work.League Octopus 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a shame to lose information in such a way, but editors need to realise that there is a threshold for notability. Whether that threshold is in the right place at the moment is a discussion for another time, but as I see it right now, these articles fall below it. The football WikiProject has lots of things that need improving, so if editors want to work on something worthwhile, rather than just a set of articles that stand no chance of remaining in the long term, I can think of lots of pages I could point them to. – PeeJay 15:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What "good work" are you referring to? No work seems to have gone into any of these pages other than a "copy and paste job" of statistics from other pages. I am not advocating the destruction of good work, I am suggesting that fourth-tier Spanish football is not significantly notable to have 35+ subpages about seasons which are not covered by reliable sources. I would ask League Octopus whether you agree with that. "Key building blocks", as you put it, would in my opinion be significant articles such as Football in Spain, which, by the way, bears no mention to league competitions below the top flight and boasts an impressive eight words regarding competitions for women. Why editors spend time regurgitating trivial statistics instead of improving the most fundamental of articles is beyond me. C679 15:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all - Articles fall below general standard of notability. – PeeJay 15:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - the only reason this pages are being nominated are because they are Spanish. At risk of someone waving at WP:OSE we don't have objections about similar articles for the 10th level of English football (and there are many, many examples, such as 2012–13 Wessex Football League) but we object to the 4th level of Spanish soccer?  Really? This reeks of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are remarkably quick to assume bad faith here, given how often you accuse others of doing the same. A quick look at any of the articles and a read through of the comments above would show pretty clearly that these articles have any number problems that the Wessex League article does not. Most importantly they have no sources and no prose. Which is precisely what it says in the nomination. Nationality has nothing to do with it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We are proposing to delete details for the 4th level of Spanish football, which is very well covered in the Spanish-language version, and yet we keep the 10th level of English football? Not only am I assuming bad faith. IT IS bad faith.  It's a vile, disgusting, violation of WP:BIAS. It's sad to see such prejudice. If one is troubled, expand the articles.  Much of the argument doesn't seem to be that the articles are lacking, but that they shouldn't be here in the first place. Nfitz (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Very well covered", as you put it, actually being "full of statistics and generally unreferenced prose". Spanish Wikipedia having more lax notability rules is not a reason to keep articles on English Wikipedia, when there is a uniform absence of referenced prose. As for the 10th tier of English football, I imagine that is not covered by reliable sources either on a season-by-season basis, but that matter is for elsewhere. C679 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well covered, as in this article is covered by 20 separate articles there. Still, do you really think that it would be difficult to establish notability for the 4th level of Spanish soccer, if the article was improved, rather than deleted? Nfitz (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Quality ≠ quantity. 20 separate articles which are unsourced and statsdumps. Not "very well covered" at all. The point is, that the articles here at en.wiki do not meet GNG and nobody, even you, is suggesting that they do. So there seems to be an absence of rationale to "keep". C679 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That comment makes it look like you believe it is the article that needs to pass WP:GNG to be notable - it is the topic that needs significant coverage in reliable sources to be notable. The current state of an article is unrelated to notability. Mentoz (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Semantics, Mentoz86; topics are subject to coverage, not articles. Articles about topics which have not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources may fail GNG. State of the article is somewhat connected to notability, as many articles do show they meet notability requirements by having reliable sources verify their content. Thanks for the opportunity for clarification, though. C679 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Nfitz. YoungIreland (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Wikipedia articles should not be excessive listings of statistics, which is all these articles are, to say nothing of the fact that none of them are properly sourced. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The proposed deletions are unsound and unfair in terms of the potential to expand the articles. If we take one just year say 2012–13 Tercera División it could be expanded into a very detailed article using regional web and newspaper articles. Just take a look at the Spanish pages:
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_I_%28Galicia%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_II_%28Asturias%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_III_%28Cantabria%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_IV_%28Pa%C3%ADs_Vasco%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_V_%28Catalu%C3%B1a%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_VI_%28Comunidad_Valenciana%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_VII_%28Comunidad_de_Madrid%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_VIII_%28Castilla_y_Le%C3%B3n%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_IX_%28Andaluc%C3%ADa_Oriental_y_Melilla%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_X_%28Andaluc%C3%ADa_Occidental_y_Ceuta%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_XI_%28Islas_Baleares%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_XII_%28Canarias%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_XIII_%28Regi%C3%B3n_de_Murcia%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_XIV_%28Extremadura%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_XV_%28Navarra%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_XVI_%28La_Rioja%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_XVII_%28Arag%C3%B3n%29
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tercera_Divisi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a_2012/13_-_Grupo_XVIII_%28Castilla-La_Mancha%29
 * + Numerous regional newspaper & web articles
 * + General stats sites
 * http://areferegional.wikispaces.com/ESP
 * http://www.futbolme.com/historico/index.asp?d=
 * http://arquero-arba.futbolme.com/
 * League Octopus 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They could be expanded. However, having looked at a couple of the articles I can see very little prose supported by references apart from coverage from winning the league at the Galicia section, which of course is possible to list (or write about) at the page for the league. General stats sites belong in the external links. I hope you're not suggesting a format similar to the Spanish one, where there is an abundance of statistical information and barely any referenced prose. Per WP:NOTSTATS, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Wikipedia articles should not be: […] Excessive listings of statistics." C679 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a very very serious issue for the project. You all do brilliant admin work for the project but the removal of fourth tier league tables from the "World & European champions" country is a step too far. You are playing with WP terminology (you know far more about it than me) but if you want people like me to stay in the project you will call a halt to this form of "mass deletion" nonsense. The choice is yours.  I could provide a great single page for 2012–13 Tercera División that would tick all the boxes but I have resolved to give the project one last chance (after a years absence) and give superb coverage to an African country - Uganda (currently halted). League Octopus 14:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So by your argument, (ignoring the point that notability rules are not uniform across Wikis so highlighting what is on the Spanish WP is not relevant), we should keep the pages until Spain are no longer world and European champions? I also note, looking at the Spanish articles that these seem to suffer from exactly the same problem being discussed here, namely a wealth of stats and a dearth of sourced prose. Only this article has anything like a significant amount of prose, but it is all unsourced, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make, there is little indication that there is substantial reliable discussion of each of these groups in Spanish language sources from your comments above bar the usual routine stat sites. Furthermore, how would you address the points raised above that season articles are only required for "top leagues" as per WP:NSEASONS. I know this is particularly vague, but it stands to reason that a tier on any countries league pyramid where the divisions are split by region is not a "top league". Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NSEASONS covers "sports team seasons" not leagues. The issue demonstrates that this deletion process is fundamentally flawed with NSEASONS being promoted as a main reason for deletion when clearly NSEASONS does not make any reference to "league seasons". A reasonable action would have been to put the articles forward for improvement rather than culling. 15:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comments here are beginning to get quite personal, you may wish to consider reviewing them. Aside from any issues with NSEASONS, which AfD precendent shows has been used for league seasons as well as club seasons, since it is merely WP:COMMONSENSE to replace the word "teams" with "leagues" in the phrase Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players, there are still fundamental NOTSTATS and GNG issues in this raft of statdump articles that rely almost wholly on statistical websites for there sourcing. So far you have not been able to provide any real evidence that these articles pass GNG and the reasons for this is that beyond statistical sites and routine match reporting, there simply is not the level of substantial reliable sources out there to generate the degree of sourced prose that these articles require. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – Tercera División articles should be the limit of season articles in Spanish football. This is a national league (it appears at the Spanish Federation website and teams can qualify to Copa del Rey) and every week appears in all the Spanish sports newspapers (Marca, As, Sport and Mundo Deportivo). It would be a shame to delete all of them. Is Spanish Tercera less important than Segona Divisió of Andorra, a country without professional teams e.g.? Gonzaka (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should they be the limit, what guidelines exist to support this view. The fact that the league is at a level from which teams can qualify for the Copa del Rey would indicate that the league and teams are inherently notable for their own articles, which no one is debating here, but that is not an inclusion criteria currently mandated by NSEASONS. I would however, agree with you and Nfitz above, that there are a number of leagues which currently have season articles where NSEASONS would indicate they are not sufficiently notable and perhaps these should / will be discussed in due course. However, as always, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an acceptable AfD argument. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - the quality of an article is never a good reason to delete. A dedicated Spanish-talking editor would probably have small problems with demonstrating notability on these articles - afterall it is the fourth tier of of Spanish football. It wont help the systematic bias in Wikipedia to delete these articles, and I'd like to encourage the editors that dislike season-articles failing WP:NOTSTATS to go nominate some of the tenth-tier season-articles listed in this template for deletion instead. Mentoz (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Revamp offer - I assume that if the deletion of these articles is successful the next move will be to delete the remaining Tercera División articles - refer here. This will of course involve the removal of many third tier league articles from Spanish football.  One thing that is clear is that all of the articles are poorly presented and I am willing to standardise and improve them if the proposer is willing to withdraw the current proposed deletions.  I will also ensure that one article is up to GNG standard and this should act as a signpost for Spanish-speaking editors by indicating the sort of standard that we seek.  I make this offer on condition that 2011–12 Tercera División is restored. League Octopus 08:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedurally, AfD nominations may not be withdrawn when votes for delete are present. Of course, if any specific article meets the general notability guideline, there is a strong case to keep it. C679 20:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - In my view there is real potential to WP:MERGE the Tercera División league table pages with the Tercera División play off pages e.g. 2010–11 Tercera División can be merged with 2011 Tercera División play-offs. The play-offs should make it much easier for Spanish-speaking editors to address notability.
 * Play-off pages have been created for:
 * 2012/13 Spanish version
 * 2012 Tercera División play-offs
 * 2011 Tercera División play-offs
 * 2010 Tercera División play-offs
 * 2009 Tercera División play-offs
 * 2008 Tercera División play-offs
 * 2007 Tercera División play-offs
 * 2006 Tercera División play-offs
 * 2005 Tercera División play-offs
 * 1992/93 Spanish version
 * 1991/92 Spanish version
 * 1990/91 Spanish version
 * and info can be added for the play-offs covering the other years.League Octopus 09:16, 27 February 2014 (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.