Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic F.C. season 2000-01


 * 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. Angelo 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. season 2000-01

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

contested prod; I still don't see any notability here whatsoever and no potential. Why can't this info be in the article on the team? Postcard Cathy 13:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Information that is relevant in the long term should be included in the team article; but I don't see why this level of detail (one article per club and season) would be relevant for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a news archive. --B. Wolterding 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Horrible article, but it certainly passes the general notability guideline, which says A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Celtic is one of the most famous clubs in the world, I'm sure there are sources to be had. faithless   (speak)  21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Desperately needs a massive cleanup, but it passes the notability guideline. However, if it is not improved soon, I can see it getting deleted in the future. - PeeJay 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Inclusion on Wikipedia is based on notability and not the quality of the article as it stand. In terms of notability, Celtic F.C. is an internationally well known football club with wide coverage. Any particular season receives equally wide coverage to satisfy notability, nevermind the one where they took the treble.
 * We have high precedent of articles of this format - at least around 250 for football clubs.
 * We have high precedent of season-by-season articles for professional sports teams in general, see Category:Current sports events just for those from the current season.
 * We have discussed this before already, the consensus haven't changed from 1 month ago.
 * Note - as the one who contested the prod., I would have appreciated if I were informed when this were placed on AFD, as I'm sure the creator of the article would too when this was prod'd & AFD'd.
 * -- KTC 00:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I am doing a little work on this. Notability is asserted - this was a season in which Celtic won a domestic treble, a significant achievement - and there are already eight references to confirm faithless ' point about there being sources to be had (and the season hasn't begun yet...).  --Malcolmxl5 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comment We now have a substantial, well referenced article that can now be worked on further. I suggest a keep and speedy close to this nomination. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 08:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Malcolm has done some really good work on this article so far, I think this AfD can go ahead and be closed now. faithless   (speak)  09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, there's been a lot of work done on this, but do we need an individual article about each season of each major professional sports team in history? Not only are there articles about the other Celtic F.C. seasons (2001-02, 2002-03, etc) there are articles about how 2000-01 went for the Boston Celtics and the New England Patriots and the Detroit Red Wings, etc etc.  I think that if we saw how many teams have this type of article about their season, and realize how many more are added with each new season, we would be horrified.  Great research, sure, but is Wikipedia supposed to host every such project? Mandsford 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question I'm sorry, but what exactly is your rationale for deletion? The subject of the article is notable and verifiable. Why shouldn't it be included in Wikipedia? faithless   (speak)  14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If the topic is deem notable enough for inclusion, which by all those examples you yourself cited it does, and is verifiable with reliable sources, which by all the references added by Malcolm it does, then yes, we should have it. KTC 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I recognize that Wikipedia has a lower set of standards when it comes to sports and television, but I stand by my opinion. Sure, Celtic F.C. and other pro sports teams are entitled to their own articles, written and edited by their fans.  On the other hand, I believe that Wikipedia is NOT the place to have voluminous articles about each season for each professional sports team that has fans who like Wikipedia.  Where do you draw the line?  If you have no problem with an article about a team's 2000-01 season, would the "it's not a paper encylopedia" or "it's verifiable" or "it's notable" argument apply to individual articles about each of the games played during that season?  Sports and TV fans are spoiled, and they have this expectation that they are entitled to have endless information about their favorite entertainment.  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it isn't a stack of magazines either.  Mandsford 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You need to point out how the article fails Policies and guidelines rather than express your personal view on what should or should not be included in Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment' No, I need to get a colon exam on a regular basis. And I can express my personal view on what should or should not be included in Wikipedia anytime I want to, "Mal".  But thanks for the suggestion.  Maybe you can visit your jolly olde sports pub and suggest to the biggest, drunkest, guy why he should really be rooting for Celtic.  Let me know how it goes, old chap.  Mandsford 23:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What a charmingly odd and old-fashioned way to express yourself! Of course, you can express your personal view what should or should not be included in Wikipedia but the closing admin is likely to give more weight to those comments that refer to policy and guidelines rather than those that simply express personal opinion... --Malcolmxl5 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep although I'm a completely football-illiterate person. My reasoning is that if wikipedia (currently still) allows for individual episodes of television shows, never mind articles for each season of a television show, why can't there be a detailed article for each football season of a club? It's not like this article is a stub, poorly sourced or poorly written. In the absense of other deletion rationales, I don't see why this article should be deleted. – sgeureka t•c 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the article as it was when Postcard Cathy placed the AfD and this is as it is now (and there's more to do). --Malcolmxl5 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This kind of article is standard practice for sports articles. It provides a level of detail that you cannot provide on a main history of xx article. The Category:English football club seasons as well as Category:Football (soccer) clubs season contains many articles. Your efforts are probably better directed at cleaning up the myriad of categories in that area. The football wikiproject is debating at the moment what content should be included in these articles. It conforms to all policies and guidelines and the nomination has degraded into an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Woodym555 23:44, 20 September 2007 (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.