Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Grand Rapids FC season (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

2015 Grand Rapids FC season
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a club season article about a team that played in the Great Lakes Premier League, a regional amateur league in the United States, not a top professional league as required by WP:NSEASONS. If the United States Soccer Federation were to have officially classified this league and followed standards used in most other countries, it would not even have been a Division V league. Second, WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and while this article does contain significant prose, it is far from well-sourced. There are five references given in the article other than those included in game boxscores. Three of those five do not support the statements to which they are attached. Another is clearly WP:ROUTINE, since it is an article written about the team's opponent. That leaves the reference that supports the team's average home attendance as the sole source cited that actually supports a statement made in the article and does not come from routine coverage. It is questionable whether there is enough independent, reliable coverage that can be used to support the information the article presents. Without any meaningful citations, there is a legitimate concern that this article may be almost entirely original research. Without significant coverage, the article fails to rise to the level needed to satisfy the presumption of notability under WP:GNG. That guideline indicates that even where an article achieves the presumption of notability, the results of a common-sense discussion should prevail. Common sense tells me that the 2015 season of a club that played in a regional amateur league comprising five clubs is not notable enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. The article's first deletion nomination resulted in a Procedural keep. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I thought the other seasons passed WP:GNG and even though this article isn't sourced as well I think it also passes WP:GNG. I know we've recently deleted other season articles for this team, though, and don't expect it to be kept. SportingFlyer  talk  06:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS, there are only four source, the fifth source doesn't help the article. Only one source covers the end of the 2015 season. WP:GNG asks for multiple reliable sources for the subject, as this subject is for the season and the fact only one source covers the season means the article fails WP:GNG also. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Currently there isn't even a 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season article. Number   5  7  09:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment just as a quick note, and for full disclosure, this league season did exist but the article and others were all merged into the Premier League of America article. Here is that deletion discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GNG failure lacking significant coverage, and the sources that are present don't have anything to do with the season being discussed. Also fails presumption of notability for WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails NSEASONS and GNG, with the acknowledgement that I nominated the article for deletion the first time. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Grand Rapids FC, as the NSEASONS guideline people love to cite clearly says "It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." As others have stated, that's the case here, so the solution is redirection, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems to me that the context of that statement in WP:NSEASONS is drawn from, "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article," in WP:GNG. This article has 12 citation needed tags and three not in citation given tags. The only verifiable facts in the article are the team's average home attendance and the scores and names of goalscorers for some (less than half) of the team's matches. Admittedly, that may add up to some verifiable facts, but I'm not sure this article is what they are addressing there. Redirect makes absolute sense, if this content is moved to the team article, but if it isn't, what would be the point? So, the question is whether this content should be moved. It would be great to have the boxscores in the team article, but seven of the team's eight league match results are unsourced. Should we move all of them to preserve the single verifiable fact? The player roster and statistics are unsourced as well. None of the prose is sourced. Should it nevertheless be placed in its own section in the team article? In the end, we have one verifiable regular-season boxscore, a few verifiable and unverifiable boxscores from friendlies, several paragraphs of unverifiable text, an unverifiable roster and unverifiable statistics. The word some is difficult to quantify, but this seems more to me like a bit less than some. The amount of unverifiable content is overwhelming in comparison to the verifiable facts with which it would move. If one concludes that the content should not be moved, what would a redirect accomplish? Taxman1913 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 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.