Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006–07 York City 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 as there is strong consensus among the editors here that the subject meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 York City F.C. season

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

Despite being well-written and well-referenced, there is no evidence that these seasons meet the general notability guidelines. The sources are run of the mill newspaper sports reporting, which WP:GNG states is not sufficient to establish notability. Beyond this, the page does not show notability as a season. Other AfDs have established a strong consensus that seasons in non fully professional leagues - such as the Conference in which York competed in for these years - are not inherently notable. Comparable deleted examples are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

I'm aware that a couple of these seasons have been given good article status. They are well written. But being good does not exempt an article's topic from having to be notable. Wikipedia is not a place for everything: we have agreed as a community that an encyclopedia should have limits to have value. Across several articles, a consensus has developed that seasons at this level are not inherently notable. With no evidence that the seasons are otherwise notable, I feel that they should be deleted. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of seasons being listed is:

You do realise it is near impossible for an article to attain GA status without satisfying WP:GNG, right? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here for an argument; I've made my points. I'd like editors to have their say and if I've misunderstood, well that's why this is here! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I, just making a rebuttal to your point re GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stating they do is not a reubtal; this listing is genuine so I'm a bit stumped! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is clear that WP:GNG has been met. Spiderone 15:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the three (yes, three) GAs listed in this AfD demonstrate, club seasons at this level are able to pass WP:GNG. They garner independent coverage from multiple reliable sources, including BBC Sport, Non-League Daily, The Non-League Paper, and from local media, most notably The Press for the club in question. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - not notable per NSEASONS but clearly meet GNG. Giant Snowman 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They clearly satisfy WP:GNG, and it would be very hard to get good article status if they didn't. Smartyllama (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me how these meet GNG, rather than just say they do? Because I'm genuinely confused. Mattythewhite's later post is the only attempt I can see to actually claim that this does meet GNG. The sources are reliable, yes. They're from notable sources, yes. But GNG says

"Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering."

Aren't all these sources just news reporting that falls into this description? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate - the topic is the season. The sources describe matches, list statistics. They tell us what happened. But they do not provide critical analysis, particularly of the season as a whole. Indeed, across each article, none (that I could find) describe or analyse the seasons as seasons My concern is that the Good Article reviewers, and indeed all the people above, have been blinded by the extent and quality of the sources, without considering adequately if they actually show that these topics are notable.

To add one final point - none of the Good Article reviews are asked to comment on, or do comment on, whether the topic is notable. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 06/07 and 07/08, Keep remainder - there is clear consensus that the fifth tier of English football is not sufficiently high to fulfill WP:NSEASONS "top professional leagues" requirement unless GNG can be satisfied. The first two do not show GNG, with the articles consisting of nothing but stat dumps referenced to routine match summaries. The later three show wider GNG through significant sourced prose from sources that go beyond match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to learn which sources are in the latter three that aren't in the first two that you see as making a difference? For 2009-10 can I find just one, which clearly doesn't meet the requirement of multiple sources; for 08-09 and 10-11 I can't find any. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:Mattythewhite I looked quickly at 2008–09 York City F.C. season. Can you tell me which of the sources aren't routine match reports or transfer announcements. Honestly I don't see many if any that aren't routine. Also about the GA status. It is possible to write a nice article from WP:ROUTINE sources and as a GAN is reviewed my one user it is quite possible that these articles don't actually meet GNG. Reading the article you basically just summarise the transfers and results using routine sources. I ask @Spiderone, Nfitz, GiantSnowman, Smartyllama, and Fenix down: to list any sources that show these articles meet GNG. Also to MtW your listed reliable non-routine sources are (all comments are about 08-09 only): BBC Sport (every single one of those in 08-09 are match reports or transfer announcements); Non-League Daily (transfer announcement); The Non-League Paper (not in 08-09 so no comment); The Press (I see one that could be seen as non-routine but the rest are transfer/match reports). I urge those !voting keep to back-up their argument. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article could do with bulking up to be more descriptive and therefore be better able to demonstrate independent coverage, a la the 2015–16 article, but most of the prose was written over seven years ago. However, it should be noted that evidence of meeting GNG does not necessarily need to be present within the article, per WP:ARTN. I fee this passage is particularly pertinent: "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability".

A search for articles from The Press, who provide the most in-depth coverage of the club, for the period of the season yields around 2k results. I used the search term of "York City" (with quotation marks), so some results may not pertain to the club, but a quick check shows they mostly do. Most of the results are routine coverage, as should be expected, but I would argue there are numerous articles that satisfy GNG. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy to support the articles based on these latter sources Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after good work from Mattythewhite. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006–07 York City F.C. season

2006–07 York City F.C. season

Navigation menu

Search