Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Chester 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 delete. Consensus (and WP:NSEASONS) to delete all (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Chester F.C. season

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

PROD removed without reason. Original concern was that this club has never played at a level that would confer notability on its players and therefore its season articles are not notable either. Nothing has changed about the club to change that in the last 24 hours. – Pee Jay 11:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chester F.C. players. Giant Snowman 11:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable seasons, no need for them. In the future we could consider a History of Chester F.C. article or similar but not now. Giant Snowman 11:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP:NSEASONS, though not the best set of guidelines does make clear season articles should really only be created for clubs in top professional leagues. Also there is no sourced prose in any of these in contravention of WP:NOTDIR. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Fails WP:GNG. The Conference National seems to be the cut-off point which, funnily enough, means a 2013–14 article will be acceptable because that is the league Chester will play in next season. I assume all of these will follow suit? Walls of Jericho (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chester are an uprising team are in the 'cut-off' point next year. A.F.C. Wimbledon have their own seasons pages from their earlier years as well as F.C. United of Manchester who are two leagues below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.227.21 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — 2.124.227.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Per WP:WAX, saying that other teams have this kind of article is not a valid argument. In fact, you've just pointed out another set of articles that should probably be deleted. Thanks. That is, unless anyone can provide a good reason why AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester should have season articles... – PeeJay 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFC Wimbledon obviously now play in the Football League, so it is arguable that they should have articles on their pre-FL seasons to give a "complete picture", in the same way that we have things like 1883–84 Black Arabs F.C. season and 1883–84 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a good point. What about FC United of Manchester though? I hope we're not making them a "special case". – Pee Jay 12:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about post-FL? Stockport County are about to go into the same league Chester have just come out of. But they are clearly still considered a big club, will they be notable enough for a seasons article? They've been having season articles for the last 5 years and i'd imagine someone will create on for the following season. Do we try and go for a 'complete picture' with any club that has played in the FL, no matter how far they've dropped?Narom (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been editing/creating these pages and I'm still in progress of improving them so if the sources are the problems I'll be adding them soon. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008jordancfc (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No one above has said anything about the sources being inadequate. In fact, there is nothing wrong with the article itself, it's just that the subject is not notable. – Pee Jay 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "complete picture" argument is compelling enough that an arbitrary cut-off point is silly. It has been discussed many times before and no consensus has ever been reached that such a point exists or is indeed useful. Owain (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A complete picture of what, in Chester's case? The current Chester FC has never played at a notable level, so why are we making season articles for them? It makes sense in the case of Manchester United (Newton Heath LYR), and even in the case of Bristol Rovers (Black Arabs), but the three articles we have on Chester present the sum total of their history, which has never taken them above the fifth tier of English football, and that only happened last month. Maybe if Chester make it to the Football League, then there would a "complete picture" to fill in, but to assume that they will any time soon would be crystal-balling. – PeeJay 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A complete picture of senior football in Chester. It is not a simple matter of saying "this particular incarnation of the senior team hasn't played at a high enough level". Arbitrary rules should not be applied directly without looking at, for want of a better phrase, the "bigger picture". Owain (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it is a matter of saying that. Chester City FC and Chester FC (2010) are not the same team and their histories are not contiguous. The history of football in a particular city is irrelevant. There is no bigger picture. I wouldn't say that we should make season articles for Manchester FC just because Manchester United and Manchester City had played in the Premier League because Manchester FC never played at a high enough level. That's just silly. – PeeJay 14:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The history of football in a particular city is irrelevant" in your opinion. Your Manchester straw-man argument is clearly irrelevant as we are talking about a single representative team here, not one of many. Owain (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually we're not just talking about one team because you made the discussion about more than one team. Chester has had several teams in its past (see here), and not one of them is particularly "representative" of the city, since they've all had players who come from all over the place. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that we create season articles for teams like Chester Nomads and Chester St Oswald's, because they certainly haven't played at a high enough level, and neither has Chester FC. – Pee Jay 15:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these articles contained any substantial prose, I'd suggest a merge to History of Chester F.C., but at present they consist almost entirely of tables of statistics, and there is nothing to merge. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I believe club season articles should follow the same criteria as player articles - i.e. restricted to professional leagues only. Number 5 7 21:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect to Chester F.C. - not because I believe only teams in fully pro leagues should have a season-article, but because season-articles without a well-sourced prose shouldn't exist per WP:NSEASONS. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - amateur or semi-pro football is not notable, so a sub-article about it should default to the same. C 679 22:19, 16 June 2013 (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.