Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013-14 Guernsey 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013-14 Guernsey F.C. season

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

Long-standing consensus for English club season articles is that they are only appropriate for clubs that competed in one of the five highest levels of the league pyramid during the season in question. This has not been the case for Guernsey F.C., who were at the eighth level at the time. There are many precedents for AfD discussions of such lower-league club season articles; including another Guernsey F.C. season article which had been nominated for the very same reasons.

The article has been PRODded before this nomination, but the tag was removed with rationale "Many more references have been added and as the article is expanded more will be added. References from the BBC, ITV, Sky Sports". Indeed the reference list of this article contains many of such items, however, most of them are routine match reports, which is not sufficient for establishing WP:GNG. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page with the same rationale as above:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NSEASONS, nowhere near a high enough level to be considered a "top professional league". Fails GNG with only coverage of the season being individual routine match reports. I am not seeing any significant coverage on the season as a subject in itself. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per longstanding consensus that season articles for clubs at this level are inappropriate. Number 5 7 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – As said above these are not notable. Qed237 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing rather an very unusual amount of media coverage - and not local - for a team playing at such a low level. I haven't gone through in detail, though I've seen some for the 2012-13 season that would seem to meet WP:GNG. Are we on the right track here? Nfitz (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we are on the right track. Does this really have to be explained to you yet again? Number 57 08:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it have to be explained to you once again that if an article meets WP:GNG that it shouldn't be deleted? Sure, we shouldn't have such articles for teams playing at this level (8th tier) normally ... but I was very surprised to quickly see articles for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons that would appear to meet WP:GNG if such articles exists - while the team was playing at the 9th and 10th tiers - ironically there's no season articles that applies to.

I'm simply and politely asking if people have dug far enough into this particular circumstance. I see no need to once again violate WP:AGF and be so utterly and unnecessarily rude! Such complete lack of attention to a main pillar of Wikipedia by a user is disappointing! Disagree with me sure - but stop being so rude about it! Good grief, it's not like I've suggested the article be kept ... I'm simply applying the same due diligence any user should make before suggesting it be deleted! Nfitz (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The issue is that you seem to have a very strange understanding of GNG that almost no-one else agrees with (there are dozens of AfDs where everyone else has !voted delete and you have claimed GNG). As such, it's hard to take you seriously when you make such claims (rather like the Boy Who Cried Wolf). And as you have been told time and again, you are not entitled to any GF when you have been behaving like this (ignoring consensus on a range of topics) for over half a decade. Number 57 14:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if my mis-understanding of GNG is faulty, on WikiFailure scale of 1 to 10, that's a 2 - maybe 3. But your failure to assume good faith is a 10. Surely editors who consistently are extremely rude and assert a right to ignore a central pillar of Wikipedia, are of a greater concern than those who simply ask a polite question about notability. In my views, User:Number 57 should be censored for such a blatant, deliberate, and horrific violation of WP:AGF. Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no indication that either of these articles meet either of the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG by receiving significant non-routine coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Examples are [1], [2], [3]. For future reference, here's an excellent one for 2012-2013 [4]. I'm also troubled by the nomination, that notes that many of the references on the page are routine - so? It's a season's article, even for a top team, many are routine; surely if the nominator thinks that some of the references aren't routine, then the article shouldn't be nominated. Nfitz (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some comments on the sources presented above:

BBC - I'm not sure how this source could be used in the article. It is a speculative set of comments from the chairman at the beginning of the season. this article is meant to document what actually happened not what someone closely connected to the club thinks might happen. This is not an appropriate source for GNG as it does not in any way discuss any events that happened during the 13-14 season.
BBC - Again a speculative article on whether the club would or would not enter the FA Cup. This is not an appropriate source for GNG as it does not in any way discuss any events that happened during the 13-14 season.
Guernsey Press - This is an article more suited to the main club article as it discusses the finances of the club in general rather than their season performance. I would also question the significance of the news report as it is from a local newspaper which according to this has a circulation of less than 40000. Fenix down (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Guernsey FC is the main soccer/football club of the Bailiwick of Guernsey.... we are not a large country, but we do exist. [5]. It is the first time that a non Welsh or English club has been allowed to play in the English leagues and as such the club is notable.[6]. The same applies for competing in the FA Cup - see Guernsey flag listed [7]. There are many thousands of expat Guernsey supporters all over the world who want to keep track of their team and Wikipedia is an excellent means to do so. The format for season activity was adopted from other clubs pages to keep it consistent, however if this is not thought appropriate, please allow at least one additional page so that the complete history of the club can be expanded from the limited space allowed on the main page as otherwise it would look very un-professional.

Comment Incidentally I found it personally annoying to complete one of the pages, submit it for approval, get it back approved and be complimented on how professional it was, so devoting a further 12 hours of work doing the other two, before having one of the pages just deleted and threats on the rest. I am new at this game, having created about a dozen pages so far, and was enjoying it, but am now very reluctant to do any further work if it can just be deleted by anyone because it does not comply to some rule I do not know exists. I always thought Wikipedia was there primarily to record accurate facts, (main pages) and provide links between data, (such as lists), without providing censorship over what facts are published, provided it is done in a professional way, with references. Mwiki3101 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2015 (ECT)

Comment - I'm sorry that you feel that way, but the fact that something exists is no reason to keep an article. Furthermore, I don't doubt that there are people who are interested in Guernsey football club, but that does not mean that WP has to have in depth articles on all facets of the club. WP:NSEASONS is the specific guideline for such articles, but WP:GNG is the overarching guideline and wP is not ap lace to write articles simply because its interesting. Fenix down (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2015 (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.