Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Virginia Beach City FC 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 keep. It is possible I'm messing up, but I'm closing this as procedural keep because the consensus seems to be that this should not be a multi-AfD, but instead the articles should be individually assessed. This close in no way addresses the notability issue of any of the articles listed herein, including the primary. As this is a procedural close, there should be no issue with listing these immediately, if done separately. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 Virginia Beach City FC season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; also, as per the consensus at Articles for deletion/2018 New York Cosmos season, seasons for fourth-tier American clubs aren't notable. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all none of these articles have demonstrated WP:GNG and the vast majority of the sources are primary. Jay eyem (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the Grand Rapids seasons. This team might be in the fourth division, but they are the highest level soccer team in the Grand Rapids metro area and have a good following. This team regularly receives coverage by local media including MLive and on TV. This team gets more attendance than some second division professional teams. Also, it seems stupid to delete pages that are well maintained just for the sake of deleting something. 68.43.38.101 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I very much disagree with the nominator's reasoning: the consensus at the New York Cosmos page did not create precedent all fourth-tier seasons aren't notable. I know for a fact Grand Rapids FC get coverage from mlive. Whether it's sufficient coverage for a season article, I'm not sure, and I'm not going to take the time to look or source the article to save it, but the test: are these seasons well-covered in independent media? For the majority of fourth division teams, the answer will be no, but the Cosmos article was specific to their reserve team. SportingFlyer  talk  02:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Flyer, fair point on the Cosmos page. It was my personal interpretation that a wide precedent had been set by that decision; I was incorrect in that, apparently, thanks for the clarification. In regards to the GRFC coverage from mlive, I would argue that it is nowhere near enough to meet notability. A quick search on mlive.com for "Grand Rapids FC" turns up just six articles written in 2018, with two of those about the women's team and one about beer sales at home games. Only one of their five games this season has received a writeup (the home opener, to be exact.) Additionally, a google search finds only negligible coverage on the team from other sources. To address the other clubs' seasons in this AFD, it is the same: virtually no coverage by independent media. 21.colinthompson (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment even if the consensus wasn't reached in that AfD, the consensus is still that season articles at this level (semi-pro in the US) don't meet NSEASONS and need to have notability established. If MLive does have some sort of in-depth coverage of the Grand Rapids season (preferably something along the lines of a summation at the end of a season) then maybe it could be argued as a keep, and even then I'm not sure that's enough. The sourcing needs to be significantly improved, as primary sources just are not adequate. As a side note, I will link to this AfD as the only example I have on my watchlist regarding this kind of situation. Take it with a grain of salt, I know there are others. Jay eyem (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as a real quick follow-up, here are a few other instances I found (1, 2, 3). Jay eyem (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As another followup, here are a few more (4, 5, 6, 7). Jay eyem (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS / WP:GNG (and per previous consensus). GiantSnowman 11:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD shouldn't combine season pages from different clubs as this can cross conflict of interest. I recommend they be split up. I am already seeing conflict of interest in the comments above. Govvy (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with this. I don't see why multiple teams should be in the same discussion. Unless there is an arbitrary rule that fourth division soccer teams cannot have season pages regardless of notability, it seems like it would make sense to have separate discussions. Rungladwin (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no problem with separate AfDs. It doesn't change the fact that WP:GNG isn't demonstrated for any of the seasons. In fact the only references that aren't primary are to a fanzine, a stadium, and to a goal of the year in 2017. None of these demonstrate notability for these seasons. I'm not sure what "arbitrary rule" you are referring to, but there is clear precedent that these kinds of seasons have not satisfied the relevant notability guidelines. Jay eyem (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment My point about an "arbitrary rule" for this level of soccer is that I believe individual teams can have differing amounts of notability and maybe they should be considered separately. For example, Detroit City FC and Chattanooga FC have a large following, appear more frequently in local media, and regularly draw thousands of fans while most other teams in the NPSL do not. Based on attendance figures, I would says that Grand Rapids FC appears to be more notable than most NPSL teams as well. Rungladwin (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't follow, what does having high attendance have to do with the (so far) lack of adequate sourcing and the precedent that's been set? Jay eyem (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Additional references were added to the Grand Rapids seasons to perhaps helps its case. Still, maybe the point was that notability it's all just measured by the number of sources. Maybe a club's following could also be a measure of notability. 68.43.38.101 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep This WP:MULTIAFD was inappropriate given these teams have received vastly different amounts of coverage and are under completely different circumstances. No objection to nominating separately so we can discuss each one on its own merits. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment in light of the recent changes to the Grand Rapids FC pages, I would support this measure. Jay eyem (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all They clearly fail WP:NSEASONS. Separate discussions for each article aren't needed here. Number   5  7  20:09, 6 June 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.