Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 Luton Town 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 keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 12:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Luton Town F.C. season

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS. The previous discussion about 5 years ago was no consensus but I can't see any reason to keep this. The club finished 17th and didn't do anything worth mentioning. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with the other topics up for nomination, this clearly passes WP:GNG just from the sources in the article. WP:NSEASONS has been used to justify deleting articles which pass WP:GNG in the past even though nothing about WP:NSEASONS is exclusionary. Deleting this doesn't improve the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG—by a mile—with its 127 references to independent reliable sources. ——Serial 12:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG as far as I can see. Lots of sources does not mean "significant coverage" - it all appears be ROUTINE/NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 20:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is the reporting any different to a team in League One? SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. After a quick search, I have found the following: 1, 2, 3, 4. I'm sure I could find more, but for the purposes of this discussion, this should be enough to demonstrate notability. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a GNG pass to me. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - considering sources provided by LTFC above, there is enough significant coverage of this season. Their run to the play-off final got plenty of coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.