Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Winterthur season

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. tl;dr (actually I did but afterwards I wished I had just counted voyes to get to NC. Sportingflyer being persuaded to change tjeir vote took this firmly into "dunno" territory. Spartaz Humbug! 22:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 FC Winterthur season[edit]

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

2014–15 FC Winterthur season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets no widely accepted inclusion criteria; not within the criteria of WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, a quick look at the German version shows a well-developed, decently referenced article, so it's probably a notable topic, but the article in its present state is difficult to defend. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing looks to be mostly to Der Landbote but then via Winterthur's club website. I'm not sure if this counts as a secondary source or not as most of the links are dead so I'm unable to check. Spiderone 17:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources from the season description are from articles of Der Landbote, that's correct. FC Winterthur published those earlier on their own website in the news section - not doing it now anymore tho. For results, transfers and so on the official website of the swiss football league is referenced. Fundriver (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is correct. The match results are complete and correct. The linked players are correct and the listed yellow and red cards are correct. Okay, there is no introduction text, there is no explaination to the season, there are no texts to the seasons endings, but the details stated are correct. Okay, there is no end of season league table and the cup winners are not mentioned. Okay, to the history of the club's seasons, there are no previous seasons and no following seasons, but the details of this season are correct and with a litle bit of work we could make the article self explanitory. Perhaps I am a little bit biased because I have contributed to the contents within. But, there are very few articles over Swiss football and there seems to be some sort of attack against Swiss football in Wiki over the last few days. Deleting the page would not improve the documentation of Swiss football, but would reduce any sort of couverage, thus making future couverage more difficult. Please leave the page and make additions to improve it. But please don't worry, if the page is deleated, I will continue my contribution to Swiss football anyway. Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The team didn't play in a fully professional league. Please can you provide sources showing significant coverage to demonstrate that this passes GNG? Also, putting two articles that fall outside inclusion criteria up for a deletion discussion hardly constitutes an attack so please don't cast aspersions. Spiderone 07:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Swiss Challenge league is a professional league - even tho some little clubs have a semi-professional player-base - but Winterthur doesn't count to them. But from the common definition in Switzerland, you consider the Challenge League (as part of the Swiss Football League, which unites the first and second tier leagues) a professional league. Out of this reason, the Challenge League also was allowed to play again quite fast after the lockdown due to the Covid-crisis, while all amateur-leagues were still forbidden. Fundriver (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is why it has to be a fully professional league by Wikipedia standards. As you say second- and third-tier leagues often have a number of smaller clubs. In Norway it's the same. The second-tier league consists of about 4-5 fully professional clubs and 12-13 semi-professional clubs. That makes for a not fully professional league. Geschichte (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, User:Geschichte. Unlike the standard for players, WP:NSEASONS explicitly doesn't use "fully-professional". It simply says professional. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello there from Winterthur, the results in the article are all correct. As well I can assure you, that the sources are correct. If you need some short saison description, I can make one in english - even tho german is my mothertongue. Fundriver (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:GNG, please could you provide secondary sources that show significant coverage of this particular Winterthur season? I was not questioning the accuracy of the results but more the notability of the subject. Even leagues as low down as the 11th tier in England have reliable recording of results. The reason they don't have articles is because they generally lack the coverage to pass GNG. Spiderone 12:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Thanks for the imput. As suggested to me, I have copied both pages into my sandbox. But as far as I can see from the imputs to date, there is not going to be a decision, because there are not all that many inputs so far. Again, I just suggest that we keep the articles just in case that there are going to be improvements made from other users who know or find further information. Again, all I am trying to do with my edits, is to increase the coverage of Swiss football. If kept, I can definately add prose, but I am not willing to do so if the article is going to be deleated wthin a couple of days. I wish everybody a very nice Sunday --Huligan0 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. The article being correct is in no way a justification for it to be kept. Number 57 11:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned, the swiss Challenge League is a professional soccer league - as far I understood, this should be enough for notability. Best regards, Fundriver (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, WP:NSEASONS isn't an exclusionary standard, and the Challenge League does get significant coverage in national newspapers. SportingFlyer T·C 12:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet none of this alleged significant coverage has been found... GiantSnowman 11:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Results listings are not WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 22:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another remark They are not just result listings, there are match courses stated on all matches on SFL and there is a live ticker as well on Weltfussball. Please tell me what you want, not what you DON'T want. Otherwise we can't improve the article to your satisfaction. I repeat, I just suggest that we keep the article (unluckily the 2016–17 FC Schaffhausen season has already been deleated already) just in case that there are going to be improvements made from other users who know or find further information. There are already two offers in this discussion to improve it. Again, all I am trying to do with my edits, is to increase the coverage of Swiss football. If kept, I can definately add prose, but I am not willing to do so if this article is going to be deleated as well within a couple of days. I wish everybody a very nice Thursday and send greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing a good article for a season can be difficult but if you're looking for guidance, these articles are probably a good starting point. Have a look at the references used. Yes, a lot of the coverage is just from match reports but there are also plenty of references showing interest in the club season as a whole 2000–01 S.L. Benfica season and 2015–16 Bengaluru FC season. Spiderone 08:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets NSEASONS, as they play in one of the top professional leagues in the country. Note that NSEASONS explicitly doesn't say "fully-professional". There's enough material to make a reasonably sourced article - and looking at de:FC Winterthur/Saison 2014/15, a very good one. Article needs improving not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep: "Change of !vote, see comments below". (ATD, draftify) : Fails WP:NSEASON, What Wikipedia is not, and WP:Verifiability. Article problems are likely insurmountable. Notability: If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). The catch-22 of not wanting to add prose (and apparently sourcing) to an article that may be deleted (we call a Hey) is that currently the article fits the definition of 1)- "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", basically a list-class article. If we have a list-class statistic article there should be a main article with "explanatory text providing context". When this is lacking the article fails WP:NSEASON miserably: Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. When notability is challenged an unsourced article, apparently improperly using sourcing from the "External links" section that includes the names of living people, runs afoul of BLP: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Said it much better than I could myself. Spiderone 13:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article could use some improvements, it provides accurate details on a full season in the 2nd tier of Swiss soccer. The discussion about fully professional seems a little strange to me - as even a first-tier club in a fully professional major soccer league could field amateur players from their 2nd squad - which does not make anything about the league or club less than professional. Regardless, this looks to be useful info to have in an encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Otr500 and Spiderone. We are not simply a directory of stats and match results - per WP:NSEASONS, there must be enough content to produce actual sourced prose describing the season, and no one here has given any indication that such sourcing exists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A lot of people seem to be working on the presumption that teams in the 2nd tier of Swiss football automatically warrant these articles but I'm not seeing enough in the way of evidence to support that presumption. Spiderone 16:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the relist. I have had a look at the posibilites and have now decided to make some improvements to the article, to see if I can save the contents from being deleated. As I mentioned earlier, there are very few articles over Swiss football and I still feel that there some sort of assault against Swiss football in Wiki over the last few months, a referee and the 2016–17 FC Schaffhausen season has been deleated, a couple of player articles have been closed and now Fedayi San is proposed for deleation as well. Then our discussion here about the Swiss Challenge league being or not being a professional league. The Challenge League is part of the Swiss Football League. Due to the Covid-crisis, all amateur-leagues are still forbidden/interupted while professional sport is allowed, the Super League and the Challenge League are both running. Hoping that I will be successful in changing a few peoples minds, I send football greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other sources available like this one? In my view, this is the only one out of the ones cited in the article that could contribute towards WP:GNG. Spiderone 11:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Hallo, I take the liberty to ask you if you would like to review 2014–15 FC Winterthur season (again). In the meantime, I have added texts and citations. Perhaps you would like to add a new comment, and perhaps with a couple of suggestions, to the this discussion page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your participation. Kindest greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already voted as Keep above, and with the improvements, I certainly see no reason to change that vote. Thank you for the effort!--Concertmusic (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me. I do believe that this has enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG now. Just about, anyway. I have added one citation needed tag. Just after the Der Landbote quotes; I wasn't sure if they came from the reference before or from a different article as I seem to have reached my limit for viewing articles from that paper. Spiderone 22:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) Surprised this wasn't closed already, but Huligan0 asked me to re-review the page on my talk page as I had commented earlier and not voted. It's not the clearest-cut keep in the world, but I do think this passes WP:GNG based on the available sourcing, and it's now much improved. Also note WP:NSEASONS is not exclusionary. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have also been asked to re-review following the improvements. My feelings have not changed - there is insufficient significant coverage for GNG. GiantSnowman 11:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Likewise been asked to re-review. Still a delete from me. Number 57 12:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: (hit edit conflict) WOW! Still open. Please just don't read if you think too long or skip to the "Rationale" sub-section. I too have been asked for a "re-review. Huligan0 has stated: "I still feel that there some sort of assault against Swiss football in Wiki over the last few months,...". This version of Wikipedia covers "global" notable topics and we espouse accepting articles from other versions to accomplish that goal. This has often times resulted in a deluge of articles that do not fit the established notability criteria. One inherent principle on this platform is a community supported often overlooked rationale of considering alternatives to deletion (See Administrator instructions above) to inclued providing for userfication.
The enWikipedia does have a majority of Anglophone topics and a systemic bias many times "absolutely" attributed to the availability of sources. This does not mean we are to just accept articles with a Wikipedia degrading rationale of "there may be sources out there somewhere in the universe". Another form of not mentioned bias is the lag of maintenance (resulting in career tags) and ultimately any AFD. Even when there is a possible consensus of deletion any user can request userfication.
Some things have been presented: 1)- a lack of notability certainly as evidenced by sources on the article and possible bias of finding sources as evidenced by editors requesting such, 2)- the article, as written, was a clear violation of What Wikipedia is not and project specific guidelines. I actually agree with SportingFlyer that WP:NSEASONS is not "exclusionary" but not to be discounted. Wikipedia has projects for a reason and these project (topic) specific notability guidelines should not be used to water down or conflict with other acceptable notability guidelines such as GNG. However, as long as we have projects (as long as there is an English Wikipedia) we cannot discount their topic specific guidelines and any perceived or actual issues need to be addressed within those projects so that there is no conflict. I consider all "extended" project notability guidelines to be extensions and alternative not exclusions. We use the term "General Notability Guidelines" that could be considered a "minimum" expected criteria that states: If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. However, broad community consensus has determined that "Subject-specific notability guidelines" should be established, Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG.. This is when we look to see if not only a minimum of criteria is met but that an article conforms to other inclusion standards as well as those considered for "exclusion" such as What Wikipedia is not.
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.

Rationale[edit]

In this case an editor has expressed interest in expanding coverage of topics on Wikipedia, expanded the article, and added sourcing. Sure, I would prefer to see editors with interest in what we consider more critical articles but I have championed things concerning wildlife and wildlife management so cannot let any bias lead to determine that country representative sports coverage is not important. However, I (and I hope everyone else) would want to see this editor find a happy home in expanding coverage here.
I will extend that the above mentioned WP:HEY should be offered to the editor and maybe even given a barnstar. The bottom line is that the nominator has had a change of mind or opinion (or doubts) with "I do believe that this has enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG now. Just about, anyway." Taking all this into account is the reason for a change of !vote. Otr500 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is nothing to do with systematic bias. The issue is that the Swiss Challenge League is not a fully-professional league. I would happily vote to keep the article if it was, just as I would for a season article on a third division club in Germany or Japan. Number 57 15:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: From your point of view Number 57 that may be correct, that this has nothing to do with systemic bias, but some could argue a different point. I wasn't involved in the discussions of the deleted articles, and see that the article FC Winterthur has sourcing issues, I see that this team is listed in the List of football clubs in Switzerland as "fully professional", however, I didn't review the history to see if that was a recent change.
Looking at comments between Geschichte and Nfitz there is a missing rebuttal concerning "fully professional league" versus "professional". Also, the comments of Fundriver were not disputed. I also agree with Concertmusic including "fully" seems "a little strange to me", even though wording like "accurate details" or "complete and correct" are not a criteria for inclusion. Taking these things into consideration I do not see "That is why it has to be a fully professional league by Wikipedia standards.", is actually a criteria we are prepared to present as documented evidence for inclusion or exclusion.
However, the subject team plays as a Challenge League and can be promoted to the Super League apparently just by winning. I am also not convinced that the addition or omission of "fully" would be a reason for a bright line argument against WP:GNG. That may be a discussion to be had at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) but WP:NTEAM states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. At least two editors agreed with my initial assessment and comments. I seem to have a horribly good record at arguing deletion so try to find exceptions. If the Nom would have had a change of opinion earlier we would not be having these discussions because the AFD could have been closed as withdrawn --right? From my initial assessment, to my change of !vote, and now after looking even more, I submit the team has notability (but better sourcing is needed), appears to be a "professional team (apparently even "fully" professional), and base my opinions on that. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it's not an area you have much experience editing in so you don't know the background, but it's been well-established from AfDs down the years, that when it comes to football, the 'professional' in NSEASONS is taken to mean 'fully-professional' – see e.g. this AfD from a couple of years ago. As you can see from this one, Nfitz is well aware of this, but has a long history of feigning ignorance of such consensus in AfDs. Number 57 09:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Leyton Orient AfD was a frustrating one. That article clearly passed WP:GNG and should not have been deleted. Seasons which pass WP:NSEASON are presumed to entitle articles. Seasons which don't must pass WP:GNG. It doesn't exclude anything. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, to this comparison between "fully professional" and "proffesional": On the latest since the reduction of the Challenge League in 2012 from 16 to only ten teams in 2012 -but in my opinion also before- you can consider the league as fully professional, even if I still don't get what excactly you want to point out by this difference. But I read above the german third division as example for a fully professional league, than you also can consider Challenge League as fully professional. Also in there, with entering this league the teams are considered to be in professional fooball, even if teams like SC Verl have a little budget and need to play with many youth players to be able to survive in the league. As it is in the Swiss Challenge League.
The clubs in the Swiss challenge league need professional structures, as an own Aktiengesellschaft for the professional football, so that they can go bancrupt without affecting the youth of the club. And I think every source you consider will tell you, that this is a professional league and if you search for semi-professional swiss leagues, you can find stuff like the third-tier Promotion League in football or the top-division leagues of Handball or Floorball. In those leagues you can find stuff like some players that get jobs as a rewards or cars and on the other hand players, that are fully professional. Fundriver (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources proving that the Challenge League is fully professional, then start a discussion at WP:FPL to get the league added to the list. Number 57 12:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only am I not aware of that User:Number 57, I actually think you are wrong on the issue. And really, if you are going to violate the rules here, and make personal attacks, weeks later, the least you could do is ping me. I don't know how a fifth-tier league is even comparable to a second-tier league. And I see that you also failed AGF in that article as well. Is it time for a topic-ban for repeated violations of a critical Wikipedia pillar over a minor content dispute? Nfitz (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments[edit]

@Number 57: You are correct that this is an area of which I have little to no "experience editing". I am sometimes too good with policies and guidelines but have not been involved in WP:FPL. The first thing I see on that page is consistent with [there are exceptions to every "rule"] such as this list can be used as an aid in considering the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline as well as a red flag of The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources. Since my time on Wikipedia I know few things are written in stone. I also appreciate a WikiProject that gives strong criteria rather than attempts to water down WP:GNG. I also don't want there to be "stringent rules" that become a bright-line of "this way or nothing".
In this case I see an "exception". I had a discussion (I feel productive) with an Admin about deletions and realized I actually had a horribly good record in deletion discussions. I haven't looked in a long time but even here there was agreement of my rationale that was echoed by two editors. THEN--- an editor made changes (added prose and references), covered most concerns (still has some referencing issues), and I see article improvement, an editor willing to collaborate, and would hope there would be a decision to get involved in more areas. This editor may ONLY want to work on particular articles but that is alright also. Let's throw a bone when it is due and discuss the short-comings or needed additions where it is relevant.
Now, since I am not an "expert", I will not likely seek to have an addition made to the WP:FPL list. I will gladly (and impartially) join a discussion if pinged. At the least there does need to be some clarification. Also, we can always revisit this later. Thank you all, -- Otr500 (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo and thank you Otr500 for your conributions. I have never joined in such discussions before and will probably keep out in future. But thanks for the contributions, these give me a lot to think about and will help me in future articles and edits. Greetings from Switzerland and have a nice week-end --Huligan0 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I would like to say thank you to everybody. This was an experience. --Huligan0 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, by making it an experience for everyone, and verbally assaulting those that don't go away, is how bullies get their way. Wikipedia is poison for civility and common sense. And those that survive it without loosing their cool, end up running the place. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014–15_FC_Winterthur_season&oldid=994145070"