Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur 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. The additional week yielded little in the way of discussion. I don't believe we have consensus here. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

2015 Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. Also, club does not play in a fully professional league. Davidsousa1 (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same aforementioned reasons:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Even with a number of fotbotli articles, seems to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources look good. I agree this passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - what sources are the ones giving significant coverage to this season, and not routine events in the season? GiantSnowman 10:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So the standard for these articles is now having significant coverage of the entire season in one article? SportingFlyer  T · C  14:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not sure there is consensus one way or the other. The articles seem to be well sourced but other editor's are claiming that the sources are routine. More t8me needed to discuss that element.
 * Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number   5  7  11:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The biggest club of the most popular sport in the country. Plenty of coverage in the national media       . Dammit_steve (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. The idea that sources have to cover everything about the entire season in one article is completely ridiculous and not at all how GNG works. In virtually every case, you're not going to have a single source covering every single part of the article. The arguments above are completely absurd and frankly I want to use much stronger words to describe them but I'll bite my tongue bearing in mind WP:CIVIL. Smartyllama (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles fail WP:NSEASONS as KR don't play in a fully pro league. Fails WP:GNG because only routine stuff like transfers and match results are cited. KR's 2014 season was deleted five years ago. Dougal18 (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These are not routine stuff Dammit_steve (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Source 1 is transfer related, source 2 is a prediction, sources 4 to 30 are transfer news or stats (sometimes from KR's own site), 31 to 52 deal with match reports and 53 to 55 are the same thing cited 3 times.  My knowledge of Icelandic is non existent so I can't decide on the newspaper articles.Dougal18 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2019 (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.