Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Virginia_Beach_City_FC_season References

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. Davewild ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

2015 Virginia Beach City FC season

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

This is a season article that fails WP:NSEASONS. Prod was removed by the creator who said that "We have plenty of season articles not in the top division." This is true: if you check out Template:2014 in American soccer, for example, you can see that we have season articles for MLS (top tier), NASL (second tier), and USL Pro (third tier) of the American soccer pyramid. However, Virginia Beach City FC plays in the National Premier Soccer League, a developmental league that isn't officially on the pyramid (although usually referred to as a "4th tier" league). It has been established by other AFDs that teams in the NPSL aren't notable enough for season articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 D.C. United U-23 season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 FC Buffalo season. Due to this, I am proposing this article be deleted. Tavix | Talk 17:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 17:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 17:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: I have removed the proposal because several team season articles not in the 'top division' exist. You don't see people proposing to delete York City FC seasons. VB City is no exception. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC) We might as well delete every NASL, Football League Championship, 2. Bundesliga team season article since they are "not in a top division season", further the NPSL is sanctioned by the USSF. Quidster4040 ( talk) 01:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:NSEASONS, plays at too low a level to merit incusion. Giant Snowman 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Quidster4040 seems to have misread this guideline which specifically mentions top "professional" leagues. All the leagues he mentions in his fallacious argument above are fully professional leagues, so are fine per NSEASONS and consensus in previous AfDs, which has established per here (with links in the nom to other historical examples), here and here from discussions in the last couple of weeks alone that only leagues in fully professional leagues are sufficiently notable to inherently justify a season article, with it following therefore that those outside this criterion must fulfill GNG through sourced prose. The National Premier Soccer League is not fully pro, nor is it the top professional league in the US, and there is no evidence that the club's season has garnered sufficient significant, reliable coverage outside of routine match reportiong to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Fenix down: You can also read the WP:NSEASON guideline and put emphasis on "top" professional leagues, which is what I believe he was getting at. If you take that literally, only the top league would be notable enough for a season article (ie: MLS). I do think it could use a tweak (maybe substituting the word "top" for "fully" or something along those lines) so people don't misread it so easily. Tavix| Talk 15:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment To be fair, WP:NSEASONS clearly says professional, not "fully professional" which is explicitly used elsewhere in notability standards. Nfitz ( talk) 06:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - but a wider consensus has been built around that which goes beyond. It would be useful to have clarification in the guideline though. Fenix down ( talk) 07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - well that may be true, the claim it fails WP:NSEASONS itself is false. Nfitz ( talk) 14:24, 21 June 2015 (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.