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.
Fails
WP:NSEASONS as the
Welsh Premier League is not a "top, professional league" (most clubs are semi-professional). Prod removed by article creator with no explanation.
Number57 17:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I don't think that's the proper reading of
WP:NSEASONS as it continues that those seasons almost always meet the notability requirements, meaning it needs to be analysed on
WP:GNG grounds - and while this article is probably worthy of deleting as it stands, there's probably at least enough on the six games in the European qualifying rounds to pass
WP:GNG per
WP:NEXIST.
SportingFlyertalk 23:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)reply
It is a proper reading of it; please see previous AfDs like
this one where it is agreed that there is clear consensus that when applied to football, NSEASONS requires a league to be fully-professional. Also, there are already articles on the European competitions (and indeed all the competitions that the club plays in with the exception of the Welsh Cup, although that article is likely to appear given that we have them for the last ten seasons), so there's no reason for that information to be replicated here.
Number57 00:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I disagree, it's not an exclusionary guideline but rather one that points to GNG.
SportingFlyertalk 00:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Although it fails
WP:NSEASONS, we still need to look at
WP:GNG, which it passes as
SportingFlyer explained. Yes, NSEASONS requires a league to be fully professional, but if an article meets GNG, it should be kept regardless of any SNG.
Smartyllama (
talk) 16:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NSEASONS. Fails
WP:GNG cos any sources will be
WP:ROUTINE. Suggestions that the 6 European ties make the whole season notable are wrong. TNS lost 5-4 in the CL and benefited from the drop down to the EL rule, scraped past Lincoln before losing to Midtjylland. [
[1]] saw deletion of a similar article with playing in the CL not enough to keep it.
Dougal18 (
talk) 19:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. No sources presented to show it meets GNG. Unsure why other editors (who, respectfully, should know better) are making the assumption it meets GNG without providing any actual sources...
GiantSnowman 09:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails
WP:NSEASONS and there's no evidence this season is notable enough to meet
WP:GNG. TNS have had considerably more notable seasons than this in recent history so I'm not sure why this one would deserve an article.
Kosack (
talk) 20:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
My point was why is this season actually notable. TNS play in these competitions every year so why do the sources go beyond routine for this particular season?
Kosack (
talk) 09:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Although the Welsh league is mostly semi-pro, TNS themselves are fully-pro and they have competed against other fully-pro clubs in supranational competitions (e.g.
FC Midtjylland).
Jmorrison230582 (
talk) 08:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
None of which actually meets the notability criteria in
WP:NSEASONS.
Kosack (
talk) 09:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as failing GNG. NSEASONS is not met either but this of course is just a help to see if it will because The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Rather sick of seeing Wikipedia becoming just a mass of statistics pages for sports fans.
Dom from Paris (
talk) 18:06, 30 November 2018 (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.