Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 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. This was a close thing, but there is weak consensus here that the coverage of this season is nothing that isn't routine, and that neither NSEASONS nor GNG is met. Vanamonde (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 Grand Rapids FC season
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article fails WP:NSEASONS for two reasons. First, the team plays in NPSL, a Division IV league in the United States, far from a top professional league. Second, WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and this article contains none of that. The lack of prose in the article causes it to run afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, which is another reason to delete it. While the local media coverage of the team is impressive, it is questionable whether this local coverage causes the article to rise to the level needed to satisfy the presumption of notability under WP:GNG. That guideline indicates that even where an article has the presumption of notability, the results of a common-sense discussion should prevail. Common sense tells me that the 2018 season of Grand Rapids FC was not so much more notable than the seasons of all other American Division IV clubs that it is the only one that is notable enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. The club didn't win its league's championship and was not a participant in either the 2018 U.S. Open Cup or the 2018 Hank Steinbrecher Cup. The article's first deletion nomination resulted in a procedural keep. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry about that, Cyberbot I. This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion, and I guess I didn't get here quickly enough to do Step 3. Thanks for having my back. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Taxman1913 makes some good points, there is some argument to be made about the "prose to stats" ratio. I'm not following the reasoning regarding the localness of coverage and the presumption of notability. At any rate, it does appear that the article is attempting to follow the spirit of writing encyclopedic content, even if there are points of contention regarding the amount of statistics. - Scarpy (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was not willing to go so far as to say that the localness of the coverage automatically makes it something other than significant. I only said that it is questionable. Local media might cover events such as an annual play put on by a junior high school or the closing of a family-owned hardware store that most locals remember patronizing before the Home Depot opened. I'm not equating the 2018 Grand Rapids FC season with either of those things, but I am saying that when media coverage is exclusively local, it merits a discussion as to whether such coverage rises to the level of significant. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Surprisingly most of this is already covered by 2018 NPSL season and because of this I am going to say delete due to WP:NSEASONS and WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete coverage is routine and where there is coverage it's not WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Also agreed that this is an unnecessary content fork. There is also extensive consensus that seasons at this level are not considered notable. Jay eyem (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The only important thing: this particular team's season passes WP:GNG (and it may be the only one) through coverage in numerous reliable secondary sources. The prose-to-stats ratio argument is a solid one, but it's a fixable problem and doesn't go against notability. Local coverage is still coverage. SportingFlyer  talk  06:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I stated above, an article that meets WP:GNG only gains the presumtion of notability, not unquestionable notability. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Except the coverage is routine for every source presently listed, and having routine coverage is not sufficient basis for an article. This is where WP:FOOTYN really needs to come up with standards for what season articles are presumed notable. The info and sourcing would be much better served in the Grand Rapids FC article. Jay eyem (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Except these articles synthesize the coverage that has been received over the entire season. There's nothing wrong with routine sources in this context. SportingFlyer  talk  01:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment That is literally a WP:SYNTH argument. If there is a source discussing the notability of the season in its entirety that might be different, but as is its just a bunch of routine sources. You can't just string together a bunch of routine sources and claim notability. Jay eyem (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Except the season has been continuously covered by significant sources. Requiring a season recap article to be notable on the basis of season recap sources would be ridiculous. It's not a WP:SYNTH issue as that has little to do with notability, and it's not WP:OR either. Clearly notable season, even if most seasons in this league would not be. SportingFlyer  talk  03:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I personally think that even just a season recap would be woefully insufficient for seasons at this level, but that's not what WP:SIGCOV says. It absolutely is a WP:SYNTH issue because you are suggesting that you can just string together multiple instances of routine coverage to create an assumed notability without having the significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. The source do absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability for the season as a whole in question, and given the extensive consensus (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) on seasons at this level, deletion is the pretty clear choice here. Jay eyem (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The season was covered significantly in reliable secondary sources. As I've noted, there's no SYNTH issue, and the other precedents don't matter because this article passes WP:GNG. I agree a season at this level isn't generally notable. SportingFlyer  talk  01:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anything really standout that makes this season special? Nope nothing in my opinion, WP:NSEASONS still applies regardless of GNG, and the article fails not only NSeasons, but I consider it a content fork per above, also the main football club article is tiny. There more than enough room to add prose about the season and not record the stats because thats covered by the season page noted from above. This article isn't needed what so ever at this level and is unnecessary. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, and that's enough. Yes, WP:NOTSTATS is a thing, but AFD is not cleanup. Fix it, don't delete it. Smartyllama (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. However, this article doesn't need cleaning up. There really is no article here. There is a lede followed by a collection of statistics. There is no prose at all. Essentially, if the article is to be kept, it needs to be written, not cleaned up. Right now, it is very far away from the guideline at WP:NSEASONS that says "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original]. This article does not even consist partially of well-sourced prose. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which really isn't a reason for deletion - the topic is notable per WP:GNG and prose can be added to the article. SportingFlyer  talk  21:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also inaccurate. Most of the prose in the lead didn't belong there, it was a season summary. Arguing that "there is no prose", while ignoring the prose that is just sitting in the lead is beyond dumb. (I wasn't aware that this prose had been added after this comment) I've split it into another section. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 08:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 02:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've seen much worse sourced team articles, and a lot of them need deletion, but there seems to be plenty of coverage of games of this particular season. Is it really common practice to disregard game coverage for notability and delete season articles that are well sourced? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, the arguments against is that the league isn't significant enough, the season wasn't important enough because they didn't win anything and/or only received local coverage (though throughout Michigan, which confuses the argument a bit), or the lack of prose (a fixable issue), but this season received enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG and I don't really see any better WP:NOT argument against. SportingFlyer  talk  06:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet your argument that it meets WP:GNG is essentially a WP:SYNTH argument and there is extensive precedent for this exact situation that says these seasons are not notable. Kind of up to the admins if they want to break from that precedent. Also as a side note, most of the prose presently in the lead was not there when the comments addressing it took place, just check the edit history. Jay eyem (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet WP:SYNTH is an WP:NOR argument and there's nothing here which is original research - it's all supported by sources which pass WP:GNG. We're going to go back and forth on this one. SportingFlyer  talk  19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how even asking for a single article that summarizes the entire season is too much to ask for. If I can find literally any team that gets regular local coverage can it go on Wikipedia? High school american football? Of course not. So where does the line get drawn exactly? This is why WP:SIGCOV exists. It's also why the precedent regarding semi-professional seasons exists. Because they need to achieve that significant coverage, which this definitely does not. And it's the exact same reason why so many have been deleted in the past. Without even an article summarizing the season in its entirety I don't see how this is anything but synthesis. Jay eyem (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I continue to disagree - the club has received WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. The "season recap" article is just adding an additional qualifier onto WP:GNG which shouldn't need to exist. SportingFlyer  talk  21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying "The coverage isn't about the season, it's about parts of the season" is completely ridiculous. Coverage about parts of the season is coverage about the season, just as coverage about things people do is coverage of those people, even if it doesn't summarize everything that person ever did in their entire life. That's absurd to say otherwise. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So what, if I have multiple instances of routine coverage that is sufficient to qualify for any article? Absolutely not. That’s precisely what WP:ROUTINE addresses. Jay eyem (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NSEASONS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs discussion after Taxman1913 significantly improved the article.
 * Keep - per SportingFlyer & Smartyllama. Article possibly passes WP:GNG. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This article fails WP:NSEASONS, WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:GNG. The event has only routine local coverage and the article was cobbled together, WP:SYNTH, not using any sources demonstrating the notability of the season as a whole. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although I am the nominator, I am doing my best to keep an open mind. I read the prose content that has been added since the article was nominated for deletion. I cleaned up the grammar and spelling and tried to improve the content's readability without altering what the editor was saying. I do not think the article should be deleted based on the quality of the writing. So, I thought upgrading it would make it easier to evaluate the content fairly. In the four paragraphs of prose, I noted seven statements that lack citations to independent reliable sources. Five of these have no citations at all, and the other two have citations to sources that simply do not address the statement to which the reference is attached. If the 2018 Grand Rapids FC season truly received significant coverage, it should be easy to find an independent reliable source that covered the team's NPSL season opener, but that match is mentioned in the prose with no reference supporting it. There is also no source given for the club's first match against Ann Arbor, the defending conference champion, who repeated in 2018. Surely, this was one of the biggest matches of the GRFC season. I added the reference to support the team's loss in the Milk Cup semifinals, since it was already in the article. However, that reference is merely a trivial mention. The source is addressing the Milk Cup final and mentions how Lansing United, one of the participants, got there. An eight-team tournament with a $5,000 prize like the Milk Cup is clearly important to a semi-professional team. A team that is receiving significant coverage would surely have a media outlet run a story about its semifinal match in such a tournament. A statement is made in the prose about the Great Lakes Conference playoff race and the five teams competing for two berths as of the midway point of the NPSL season. With these teams all in the same geographic region, if the team was receiving significant coverage, or even if the Great Lakes Conference was receiving significant coverage, a media outlet would have produced an article on this playoff race. Instead, the statement about the playoff race is made, and no supporting source is offered. There is also no source provided for the team's second match with the aforementioned Ann Arbor. Particularly since this was a win for Grand Rapids, and arguably the team's most important win of the season, one would expect that an independent reliable source for this result is available, but none is offered. Some of the sources cited may be independent and reliable, but it is questionable whether they are truly providing significant coverage. For example, the article on the WoodTV website "covering" the second leg of the Milk Cup quarterfinals reads: "Grand Rapids FC needed a comeback effort to steal a game away from the Muskegon Risers on Friday night. After falling down early, Grand Rapids came back to win 4-3. **Watch highlights from the game in the above video.**" That is the entire article. WoodTV did find a way to make three paragraphs out of that, but it is barely more coverage than daily lottery numbers receive. If this article is kept, the overall tone of the season recap section must be addressed, since parts of it read more like a post in a fan forum than an encyclopedia article. WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and this article falls far short of that. The noble effort to add prose in the two weeks since this article was nominated for deletion has only convinced me that it is not possible to have well-sourced prose in this article, because the 2018 Grand Rapids FC season did not receive significant coverage. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. Since well-sourced prose cannot be written for this article, it can never consist mainly of well-sourced prose. That being the case, the article runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS. Taxman1913 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. I would suggest that coverage of the club's games during the season is relevant to the club or the league's season meeting WP:GNG, but not the club's individual season. Also, this topic is already covered at 2018 NPSL season. Number   5  7  16:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well sourced well written article detailing a football team's season which is a more than worthy subject for an encyclopedia. BRFC4104 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not agree that every well sourced, well written article about an association football team merits inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, my cousin plays on a U-9 girls team. If her enthusiastic mother were to write a well sourced article that follows the MoS guidelines of WikiProject Football and has an absolutely beautiful flow to it, I would still expect to conclude that it meets neither WP:NSEASONS nor WP:GNG. Based on that, such an article does not belong here. Despite the fact that I contributed to this article—in an effort to get the subject evaluated more fairly—I don't think it is well sourced or well written. There are gaps in the sourcing of things written by the primary editor. There are sources that do not support what the article says. There are synthesis/original research issues, and there are neutrality issues. As I said above, it appears there is not enough independent coverage from reliable sources to conclude that there has been significant coverage of the subject. Taxman1913 (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, with a nod that I was the user that put the page up for AFD the first time. Still fails WP:NSEASONS, as per N57's arguments. Also, the majority of the sources on this page are WP:ROUTINE coverage, either match reports or transfer news. Just a note as well regarding the use of references: common usage for match reports is to externally link it under the "|report=" part of the box, not as a reference. I believe the number of references would drop sharply if this were put into effect. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, I am swayed by the comments by, and by other delete !voters. Does not meet GNG or WP:NSEASONS. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am delighted to know that has read the entirety of my comments, not just my comment at 15:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC) saying that there was no prose at all, which CleverPhrase characterized as "beyond dumb." This attack not only departs from Wikiquette, but it was also completely unwarranted. CleverPhrase may want to take a look at how the article looked at the time I made my comment. Taxman1913 (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I wasn't aware of that, but I suppose I should have checked. I've struck my comment above. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I appreciate that, and I'm willing to forgive and forget. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.