Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Torquay United F.C. 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 delete. Clear consensus is shown below that season articles for clubs in the fifth tier of English football are not notable per WP:NSEASONS.

Of the keep votes presented, none attempt to deal either with NSEASONS or GNG, The first is an other stuff exists arguement, the second is a combination of WP:INTERESTING / WP:MERCY. The final keep vote is clearly refuted with reference to prior deletion discussions.

My decision, given that this is an article on a forthcoming season does not preclude the fact that sufficient independent may arise during the course of the season to satisfy GNG, in which case the article can be restored. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 Torquay United F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Season article in a club playing outside the fully-professional leagues, so fails WP:NSEASONS. See this AfD on season articles for clubs in the same league in the same season, which was deleted unanimously. Number  5  7  20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Per nominator, you might as well nominate Torquay's previous 2 seasons for the same reason Seasider91 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the fact that Torquay's previous wiki seasons have been approved and nothing has changed in Torquay's league status or notability [Captain9237] 13:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC) -- — Captain9237 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Most of Torquay's history was spent in fully-professional leagues, so passed WP:NSEASONS. This is not the case for this season, and I will be nominating articles for their other four seasons in the fifth tier for deletion shortly. Also worth noting that this is the first-ever edit by this user. Number   5  7  16:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - page should not be deleted. Torquay might be in a league that is not 'fully professional' but they are still a fully professional club. Also it is interesting to see statistics over the season and be able to compare and contrast with previous seasons. Please please do not delete this page :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billboothsbeard (talk • contribs) — Billboothsbeard (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The above comment was mistakenly put on the talk page of this AfD, so I have moved it here. Note that it is the user in question's first ever edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. It is a little arbitrary to have a barrier at League Two/National, but we do seem to need one with these and therefore it makes sense for this to go. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. -  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  08:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the last 3 season articles in the same league have been fleshed out with no concerns made - no reason to think that this is not true. Some seasons of the same team in the 5th tier failed at AFD previously, with little support for deletion - see Articles for deletion/Torquay United F.C. season 1996–97. Nfitz (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that was a bulk nomination in which all but one of the articles passed WP:NSEASONS. Secondly, one of the contributors notes that "The WP:FOOTY project has always operated on the basis that teams playing national professional leagues (the top four levels in England) were OK to have such articles". And of course, even if there was consensus then to have fifth tier articles (I don't believe there was), this has changed. Number   5  7  07:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hasn't changed. A primary argument, and the reason I didn't challenge it, was that future season article was too soon. There is still no consensus - and I think we've seen this in other more recent AFDs such as Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season. Nfitz (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It hasn't changed because there was never consensus that fifth tier seasons were notable. Every AfD we've had this year on a National League season article has resulted in deletion: 1, 2, 3. In fact I've just checked through our AfD archive, and there is not a single occasion on which an AfD on a season article for a club at this level has resulted in "Keep" – only a handful of no consensuses and the vast majority in delete (the closing admin is more than welcome to check this out if further proof is needed (here's another example from last year – note who has also shown up to !vote keep...). Number   5  7  17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Having done a brief count, I found 12 AfDs on fifth level season articles that resulted in delete (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) and only three as no consensus (1, 2, 3, the third of which was nominated for a second time and was deleted). Number   5  7  17:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your case makes no sense to me, we have hundreds, if not thousands of 5th (and far lower) tier season articles, and yet because the only 3 AFDs this year were delete, we should delete this one. Let's look at those 3. You've again raised the 1 that was deleted as too soon. The other two were for teams that never were higher than 5th tier, and were far lower both before and after. Compare to Torquay, which has over 85 seasons in the Football League? There's no comparision. I've not looked at the older ones, but it's clear there is not consensus to delete 5th tier season articles of teams that have spent much of their time in the Football League. Nfitz (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense because you have an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to football-related notability consensus. We do not have "hundreds, if not thousands" of these articles. As you can see quite clearly at Category:Football Conference seasons by team, we have 95 (there are two in the 2016–17 category which does not exist), and they are gradually being reduced in number as we go through these AfDs. Unless you can present a roughly equal number of AfDs that resulted in these articles being kept, then it's clear that there is no consensus to keep them, and that (from the dozen AfDs listed above) there is consensus to delete them.  Number   5  7  07:36, 2 August 2016 (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.