Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Saif Sporting Club 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 w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Saif Sporting Club season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSEASONS as a season article for a team not in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE sports reporting to meet WP:GNG. PROD was removed by a user who claimed that WP:NSEASONS does not require fully professional status, however there is clear consensus that this is not the case (see 1, 2, 3 (with links to several more), 4, 5). Kosack (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete As I've noted before, WP:NSEASONS is not an exclusionary standard on professionalism grounds and I don't know why we've corrupted it to read it that way. This is a season in a country's top flight and in theory has enough coverage to merit an article. That being said, there's only one citation so far, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I'd like to see this developed because I'm curious if enough sources exist, but a quick couple BEFORE searches brings up cricket articles, so I don't have a good keep argument. SportingFlyer  talk  08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: season article for a top tier club in a national league, thus meeting WP:GNG. Cobyan02069 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify: after another look, the article lacks a lot of references meeting GNG, so it should be moved to draft space first until it is ready for a standalone article. Cobyan02069 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:NSEASONS is top professional leagues, not a fully professional league Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said in my deletion rationale, there appears to be a consensus opposing that. In the first example user Number 57 comments, "it is agreed that there is clear consensus that when applied to football, NSEASONS requires a league to be fully-professional." Not to mention that there is no sign of the wider WP:GNG issue. Kosack (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC
 * )Pinging, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete As per the above, consensus is that with regards to football, WP:NSEASONS is only met if the league is fully-professional (see e.g. here). Number   5  7  09:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't think the consensus is that strong, if it exists at all - having reviewed a number of these AfDs (primarily the ones linked at Leyton Orient), the professionalism was a requirement only you and Fenix Down really have discussed (also here: Barcelona B). There are many football season articles that have been deleted for failing WP:NSEASONS, but "failing WP:NSEASONS" generally appears to be more of a "fails WP:GNG/WP:NOTSTATS" argument (as these articles require or should require prose) instead of any sort of professionalism requirement. See 1 2 3 4 5 in which you are the only one making a professionalism argument (with one exception); they are also examples from the English football league pyramid, which doesn't help the project in Bangladesh. So I really don't believe a professional league requirement is any sort of consensus, but rather a "Football League" consensus. To be fair, non-top flight teams do face an uphill battle anyways, as do semi-pro teams, but those leagues aren't typically covered as well. You could easily have an instance where one team passes WP:NSEASONS with flying colours (everything they do gets reported on, think Rangers F.C. (Scotland) in the Third Division) and every other team in the league does not (scores only, etc.) The test really needs to be whether WP:GNG is satisfied through non-routine reporting as opposed to any sort of arbitrary cutoff... SportingFlyer  talk  06:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The consensus exists; if you want some non-English examples: Faroe Islands, Iran, Luxembourg, Scotland, Wales. Worth noting that Fenix down actually started a couple of them (the Faroese and Welsh ones) on the basis that clubs need to play in a fully-professional league, so their claim below that their interpretation that the consensus only covers English leagues doesn't appear to be correct. Number   5  7  10:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't think we should be deleting articles based off an arbitrary rule without looking at WP:GNG (which some of those articles clearly fail.) SportingFlyer  T · C  23:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I disagree with the comments above that the consensus is that leagues must be fully professional. My interpretation of previous discussions was that those AfDs established a very specific consensus, namely that whilst there is a sufficient degree of professionalism within the National League in England, that it is too far down the pyramid to be considered a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. The AfDs noted above to my mind either deal with the English pyramid question or leagues which are deomnstrably semi-professional. Discussions both here and here show, that whilst there is not consensus that the league is fully professional, that there is a significant level of professionalism in this competition beyond that found in the AfDs above for those competitions. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a top-level football club in Bangladesh. This season has received significant coverage particularly in this piece. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That article is really about McKinstry and doesn't give much details on the club, let alone this individual season. Kosack (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Fails WP:NSEASONS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another instance of system bias and discrimination. This is a top level club and they deserve to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.225.128 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I was under the impression that to satisfy WP:NSEASONS for football that you had to at least play in a fully-professional league as defined by WP:FPL. If that is the case, then this does not satisfy that requirement. If not, it still fails WP:GNG. The only other sources are Soccerway and some preseason article about the team; that doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Jay eyem (talk) 01:00, 21 January 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.