Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eccellenza 2005–06 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eccellenza 2005–06 season[edit]

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

The sixth level of Italian football (amateur, not professional) does not warrant stand alone articles for individual seasons Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many amateurs leagues of English football, too. But no one says anything about that. In my opinion we should keep this article because there are people who interested in reading it.Kefalonitis94 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the leagues are there, not the individial seasons. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the league is notable then essentially the season is as well. Is the league itself actually notable because if it is then i would say keep if not then article should clearly be deleted. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, an amateur league is not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with what Edinburgh Wanderer said. Is the league itself notable? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as season of amateur football league. As we can see above, another one was previously nominated and deleted through AfD. People interested in Italian football history can find it at RSSSF, which is where the Wikpedia information comes from. Cloudz 679 19:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That logic would lead to deletion of all of Wikipedia, as, per our verifiability policy, all of our content should be available elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was not clear I was addressing the concern of Kefalonitis94. I am not suggesting removing everything which is externally available. Cloudz 679 04:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the league is notable, the individual seasons should be too. If not we are causing a dangerous consensus, that will cause a lot of articles to deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dangerous consensus at all; any articles deleted in this way would fail WP:N. Cloudz 679 04:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the league's not professional, it shouldn't have season articles. – Pee Jay 14:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change of mind. This is not a seasonal article on an amateur league; it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (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.