Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:33, 10 October 2020 editJay eyem (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,680 edits comment← Previous edit Revision as of 09:56, 10 October 2020 edit undoBring back Daz Sampson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users10,534 edits rpNext edit →
Line 28: Line 28:
::Except it isn't ''hiding behind'' it, it's trying to figure out what is a reasonable cutoff for notability. Individual team seasons that meet ] will be kept whether or not they play in a fully-professional league. Honestly I think bringing it up at ] for the Championship specifically would be worthwhile. I'm not sure why it gets ignored so much; even though it is just an essay, it's an excellent starting point for establishing a base notability for teams and players. ] (]) 07:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC) ::Except it isn't ''hiding behind'' it, it's trying to figure out what is a reasonable cutoff for notability. Individual team seasons that meet ] will be kept whether or not they play in a fully-professional league. Honestly I think bringing it up at ] for the Championship specifically would be worthwhile. I'm not sure why it gets ignored so much; even though it is just an essay, it's an excellent starting point for establishing a base notability for teams and players. ] (]) 07:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete or redirect''' fails ] due to a lack of significant coverage, and fails ] for not playing in a ]. Ongoing coverage is not sufficient justification for an article when that coverage is ]. Honestly not as sure about the COMMONSENSE proposal; I don't see a real compelling reason to keep or delete, but I'm not sure where the assumption of notability for team seasons for the second tier of women's football in England comes from. The current state of the citations consist of player signings, match reports, and cup draws, which doesn't constitute significant coverage, so I'm inclined towards deletion. It is also completely inexcusable for user Bring back Daz Sampson to be making such inflammatory remarks of Spiderone and I hope that they will ] in the future and that they will strike their remarks. ] (]) 07:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC) *'''Delete or redirect''' fails ] due to a lack of significant coverage, and fails ] for not playing in a ]. Ongoing coverage is not sufficient justification for an article when that coverage is ]. Honestly not as sure about the COMMONSENSE proposal; I don't see a real compelling reason to keep or delete, but I'm not sure where the assumption of notability for team seasons for the second tier of women's football in England comes from. The current state of the citations consist of player signings, match reports, and cup draws, which doesn't constitute significant coverage, so I'm inclined towards deletion. It is also completely inexcusable for user Bring back Daz Sampson to be making such inflammatory remarks of Spiderone and I hope that they will ] in the future and that they will strike their remarks. ] (]) 07:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
::Genuinely baffled here - which "inflammatory remarks" do you think I should strike? Maybe you should strike your false claims that WP:FPL (a bullshit essay) is linked to NSEASONS. ] (]) 09:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:56, 10 October 2020

2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, which are the agreed guidelines for this type of article. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the sourcing in the article doesn't demonstrate GNG, but a cursory before search shows the club and league is receiving ongoing coverage this year. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep there is significant coverage surrounding the top two flights of women's football in England at the very least to the point where these fully professional teams meet GNG. Propose WP:COMMONSENSE is applied to the fact that while the second-tier is not fully professional, those teams that are professional in that division meet GNG and at worst the article simply needs expanding and improving, just like the vast majority of EFL League Two team's season articles which have the same issues but are left published. To have 92 men's team season articles and actively go out of the way to limit women's team season articles to 12 seems incredibly problematic. The current notability criteria was created with the men's league's in mind and needs to be adapted to fit GNG teams in women's football. Hjk1106 14:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Dougal18 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - maybe we should move this to the draft space until GNG is demonstrated? Spiderone 17:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Potentially although per my earlier concerns regarding NSEASONS criteria created without taking the structure of women's football into account, may I suggest a simple solution would be to mirror the fact that all men's season articles that fit GNG do so by virtue they are also eligible for the nation's premier league cup (e.g. EFL Cup). Applying the same logic to the women's equivalent (e.g. FA Women's League Cup) would enable professional teams who would otherwise meet GNG but get relegated to the second tier and still compete in the professional league's cup competition, do not lose notability on a broadstrokes technicality. Per this example, semi-pro teams like Blackburn Rovers and Charlton Athletic would still not meet GNG but professional second tier teams such as Liverpool and London City Lionesses would. Appreciate the feedback. Hjk1106 21:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It was obvious when the WP:Footy lads came for the Doncaster Belles season articles that the "end game" would be a purge of all women's season articles. That's why I was surprised and disappointed that yourselves who spend hours doing such great work on them never bothered your arses to !vote in the recent AfDs. Don't worry, there is the opportunity for you to remedy this oversight at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Active#9 October 2020. You're welcome :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Even leaving aside that this is part of quite a sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles, this particular one clearly meets GNG. As others have noted, there is currently elevated "Sigcov" around English women's football. That might not be to everybodies' tastes but please remember Misplaced Pages is not the place to try and "right great wrongs". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Routine match reports, transfer news and squad lists are hardly WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Clearly you vehemently hate women's football - as is your right - I don't know why and I don't much care. But I do think others should take that into account when looking through your unending daily deletion requests. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Not one person has actually brought forward any evidence that this passes GNG Spiderone 19:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Why bother? You will only pretend it is "routine" or "refbombing". Editors can check for themselves. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
As per AfD guidance If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL Spiderone 20:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - has anyone who has so far objected put any further thought into my earlier suggestions regarding better adapting the current auto NSEASONS criteria for Championship teams? Surely fully-professional teams (with full senior internationals no less) that continue to contest the premier League Cup competition meet GNG and if we are to AGF then this simple adaption would relieve you of any objections based purely on the current technicality that some Championship teams remain semi-pro that you all seem to be hiding behind. Hjk1106 20:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a valid suggestion. It might be worth starting a discussion here Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football unless there's a better forum for it somewhere else Spiderone 20:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. My only hesitation with that is it raises the exact same concern it seeks to address - Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football doesn't seem the appropriate place considering it is as much about women's football as the NSEASONS it created. Hjk1106 21:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Except it isn't hiding behind it, it's trying to figure out what is a reasonable cutoff for notability. Individual team seasons that meet WP:GNG will be kept whether or not they play in a fully-professional league. Honestly I think bringing it up at WT:FPL for the Championship specifically would be worthwhile. I'm not sure why it gets ignored so much; even though it is just an essay, it's an excellent starting point for establishing a base notability for teams and players. Jay eyem (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage, and fails WP:NSEASONS for not playing in a fully professional league. Ongoing coverage is not sufficient justification for an article when that coverage is routine coverage. Honestly not as sure about the COMMONSENSE proposal; I don't see a real compelling reason to keep or delete, but I'm not sure where the assumption of notability for team seasons for the second tier of women's football in England comes from. The current state of the citations consist of player signings, match reports, and cup draws, which doesn't constitute significant coverage, so I'm inclined towards deletion. It is also completely inexcusable for user Bring back Daz Sampson to be making such inflammatory remarks of Spiderone and I hope that they will assume good faith in the future and that they will strike their remarks. Jay eyem (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Genuinely baffled here - which "inflammatory remarks" do you think I should strike? Maybe you should strike your false claims that WP:FPL (a bullshit essay) is linked to NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season: Difference between revisions Add topic