Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Cambridge United 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Cambridge United 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 as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSEASONS is the stupidest goddamn policy, and in any case isn't exclusionary. The season clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage from the BBC and Cambridge newspapers, even though the sourcing could be improved. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 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!!!!) 12:44, 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 20:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced article seems to pass WP:GNG. JonnyDKeen (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the sources in the article even come close to showing enough depth for GNG. I found a couple of match reports in The Times which show some depth "Inspiration fails Cambridge in their hour of need" and "Devon is hell for Cambridge". There is a bit of coverage here as well but it's not much. I'd be interested to see if anyone can find any form of analysis or recap about this season as a whole. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The test for seasons isn't whether there's analysis of the season as a whole, it's whether the season was consistently significantly covered, which is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - how many club seasons are truly the subject of analysis of the season as a whole, even at Premier League level? Requiring that sort of sourcing is daft, IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose it would boil down to whether the weekly coverage, such as this match report would be sufficient to substantiate the article with. I imagine many will say "yes" and many would say "no". Last year, many articles with similar coverage were deleted but, admittedly, it depends on who turns up for the AfD and AfD is not an exact science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a wider discussion is needed concerning NSEASONS which (if we disregard all the stuff about US college sport) effectively consists of the single sentence "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." This strongly suggests that any season can have an article if it meets the notability requirements. So we need to determine exactly what level/type of coverage meets that requirement. I would suggest as I mentioned above that if the requirement is "there must have been articles written reviewing the season as a whole", then many non-League articles would pass but many EFL articles would fail, yet the latter currently get a "per NSEASONS" free pass....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely agree that NSEASONS is horrendously inadequate and unclear on this. I would also agree that each editor has their own interpretation of how to apply GNG to a football season. That was shown in recent AfDs for Newport, Leyton Orient and Doncaster Belles seasons to name the most memorable examples. From Category:National League (English football) seasons by team, it looks like we haven't had a 5th tier season article for a while now. Is that because of NSEASONS or because none of them would pass GNG? I would also agree that many League Two and probably many League One seasons don't receive anything more than bare minimum match reporting and transfer reporting and many of them, in their current state, are just stats articles and don't actually follow NSEASONS' guidance of Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of WP:NSEASONS. The National League gets national coverage, and there's no reason why we can't have a season article for these clubs based on sourcing alone. This particular article is more poorly sourced, but the season as a whole should still pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG (lack of depth per Spiderone), and in accordance with WP:NSEASONS – not a top professional league, the club was playing non-league football that season (per nom) — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG in my opinion. I really don't understand what sort of greater depth of coverage other editors are looking for..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article could be improved, but there is enough to show the season can pass GNG, NSEASONS can't supersede GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not quite consensus on the GNG point yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 21:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a small amount of non-club sources, nothing suggesting this is a notable topic. Eldumpo (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, per all the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although not a particularly notable season in historical terms, I think it may scrape past general notability but would be helped by some improvements to sourcing. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 12:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG per the reasons stated above. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 22 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.