Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 October 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season[edit]

[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)

All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS significantly. This league didn't become fully pro until 2018-19.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASON failure. Number 5 7 10:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significantly passes WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to change my vote to keep for 2013 and delete for 2012 and 2011 per GNG Spiderone 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any valuable content from 2013 and just delete 2012 and 2011 completely as there is nothing worth keeping Spiderone 13:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all due to GNG/NSEASONS failures. Refbombing the 2013 article with sources about their inevitable relegation doesn't make the season notable either. Dougal18 (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: @Dougal18:, please could you expand upon which part of this sourced prose you consider relevant to WP:REFBOMB? Do longform articles from national and international media ([1], [2], [3] etc.) addressing the subject directly and in detail not amount to WP:SIGCOV in this case? Can you also explain why you think their "relegation" was "inevitable"? At the moment it seems to me you are bandying about words you don't understand and that your contribution to this discussion is nonsensical. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG/NSEASONS failure. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is there a higher professional women's league in England or is this yet another attempt to stifle women's professional sports and women in general? It appears to me that the article cites reputable news organizations that directly mention the subject team. The team played in the highest league in England so therefore it meets all the criteria. So both arguments against the article that have been used are null and void simply by applying the logic and intent of the rule itself. Prove me wrong if you can.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion is nothing to do with whether it's a men's or women's league; it's because the league is not fully professional. We have recently also deleted numerous article on top division seasons for men's clubs that do not play in fully professional leagues such as this, this, this or this. Number 5 7 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere has it ever been mentioned that playing at the highest level in one's country automatically justifies season-by-season stats articles. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere and I think fully professional leagues is a good line. Spiderone 08:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Where does Wikipedia define precisely what is considered professional or not and why do you get to decide what is considered professional or not? Why is the NFL considered professional? Because it is the top league of male American football in the United States. Why is the WNBA considered professional. Because it is the top female league of basketball in the United States. We have very much defined the top league in any country in any sport as being professional. That is a defining line. My brothers played for a semi-professional club in Italy. Why is it semi-professional? Because it wasn't in the top league. They had the same rules and played the same sport but one league is considered professional while the other is semi-professional. The article stopped reported when they were demoted and gave explanation. They are no longer in the professional league so therefore they are no longer getting the same recognition. It seems cut and dry. @Number 57: Don't pretend like all women's sports/topics/biographies and such are treated as equals to their male counterparts here on Wikipedia or in life. It just makes you look silly when you try to make that argument. We wouldn't need a "Gender Gap Taskforce" or a "Women in Red Project" if that were the case.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the definition of a "professional league" at all. Just because a league is the top league in a sport in a country doesn't make it professional. If there's a cricket league in Poland or an American football league in Chad or a Gaelic football league in Bolivia, we wouldn't deem it a professional league just because it's the highest league in that sport in that country. A professional league is one where the competitors are full-time professionals in their sport. Many years ago I briefly got to play in the highest-level baseball league in Scotland. We played on a school playing field where we had to mark out our own diamond before each game ourselves and the average paid attendance was zero, and not only were we not paid to play, in fact we had to pay a weekly fee to the club in order to play, so our baseball earnings were negative. By no sane stretch of the imagination was that a "professional league".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: By your logic then, every seasonal article on the FA WSL needs to be deleted. It isn't a professional league. Only those being paid full time wages and play full-time, whatever that is, to play their sport are professional. All others are not professional. We have a lot of articles to delete for men and women's sports so get to it. Don't just single out this one and leave the rest.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: as mentioned above, all of these articles on club seasons in their respective countries' men's football leagues have recently been deleted on the grounds that the leagues are not considered professional. There's several others open at the moment and looking like they are heading the same way, too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: ALL articles means ALL articles. Those are cherry picked. Every season article prior to 2018-2019 in the FA WSL needs to be deleted by your logic, including league seasonal articles like this one. If you leave one then it justifies leaving them all.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a club season article. We are talking here about club season articles i.e. 20NN-NN Example F.C. season. Articles on the overall league season are a different matter entirely..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand how insanely ridiculous that sounds to anyone who looks at this encyclopedia with any degree of logic? You have completely missed the intent and purpose of this encyclopedia if you are going to tell me that a semi-professional league can have an article per season but the individual teams within that semi-professional league can't because they are semi-professional.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that it's no more illogical than saying that a semi-pro club can have an article but the players who play for it can't if they have only ever played semi-pro (eg Ashton United F.C., a club deemed notable but with no current players that are deemed notable)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are breaking off into Wikipedia's notability clause which is too subjective. I can make an argument for or against inclusion and use the same clause to prove both. That's how vague it is. It become a popularity contest akin to a political campaign to see who can get the most votes or left up to whichever person you get to review the article and what mood they are in at that time.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to apply that logic to individuals, in this case athletes, and even groups of individuals, teams, then you should apply it to a league of teams of athletes.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a great example. Kim Little plays for Arsenal W.F.C.. Truly remarkable woman who deserves this article, in my opinion. But my opinion is not supposed to matter when it comes to Wikipedia clauses for whether an article should be written or not. Arsenal only became a fully professional football club when FA WSL became a fully professional league in 2018-2019 as so aptly pointed out by Spiderone. Here is a player whose only notability is playing a sport as a semi-professional prior to 2018-2019 yet her stats are listed and provided prior to that year. Also, her club has an article for the 2017-2018 season when the league was semi-professional. If the same logic is applied across the board, as it should, then none of this should even be in Wikipedia prior to the 2018-2019 season. Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to use WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS to declare that these seasonal club articles need to be deleted because the club is in a sem-professional league that didn't become fully professional until 2018-2019 and, even then, didn't include aforementioned when they did go fully professional, then the following should be deleted on the same principles: this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. I am just highlighting a few clubs/seasons. There are more.Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those articles do look to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. I will consider putting some of them through the AfD process later. I don't want to bundle too many articles together in one AfD as some seasons may be considered under WP:GNG and can be considered disruptive to just put all women's season articles in one AfD. I want to research them individually and see if some of them might at least scrape through GNG first. Spiderone 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thus my point in this whole situation. Warranted notability is subjectively left up to you (used to include all of us). The measuring stick for notability, per WP:GNG, is verifiable independent sources, period. If anyone can refute that then they are reading something else. They all meet that criteria. SO that can't be used to determine anything. The only criteria we are left with is WP:NSEASON. If you are going to use that and view it as meaning only fully professional teams then they are all out, period. FA WSL did not become fully professional until 2018-2019, meaning everything before that is semi-professional. There is nothing to research.Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FA Women's Championship, which replaced FA WSL 2, is not a fully professional league as of the current season so any teams in that league are out if you view NSEASONS to mean only fully professional teams can be included.Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and even leaving all this aside (!) the most pressing issue is that the 2013 Donny Belles article clearly passes WP:GNG. I suspect most of the above !votes are probably by rote, out of rigid adherence to the sort of dogma which has congealed around the worthless essay WP:FPL (and its delinquent offspring NSEASONS). I'd still like an explanation though, why the multiple independent reliable sources in that article are to be considered "refbombing". I mean, if I pretended all the sources in 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season consituted "refbombing" and tried to get it deleted on that basis I'd be laughed out of town, and rightly so. But what is the difference here? How and why can an article on a subject with that breadth and depth of coverage possibly be considered non-notable? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bring back Daz Sampson: I completely agree with your assessment. I notice that the same group runs around deleting these articles because of their own biased perspectives with no regard for the way these guidelines should be objective. No mention of "fully" professional anywhere in WP:NSEASONS. WP:GNG is clear when it says "reliable independent sources" which these articles have and I suspect all the articles dubiously deleted by this cabal had as well. WP:GNG supersedes every other guideline and it even states that in WP:NSEASON.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2013, Delete or Merge the others GNG trumps all the sports SNGs, so the fiddly issues they raise are beside the point. Rolling them into a single article might be the smart move. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2020 (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.