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. The article needs work, but there is no consensus to delete.
Nakon 23:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Contested PROD on the grounds that the subject matter is notable though no indication how this is so provided. Fundamentally misleading article in the first place as much of the
stat dump appears to be concerned with their non-league career. Season articles per
WP:NSEASONS and
WP:FOOTY consensus would not be appropriate for this club at that level as they were not playing in a
fully professional league, so not sure how they are appropriate in this different form.
Furthermore it is unclear why this article should be limited to just league fixtures.
Finally, whilst there are certainly notable points in the lead regarding their promotions and their unbeaten runs, but these should be discussed in the history and the long list of stats below does nothing to enhance these claims nor help the reader gain a greater understanding of these initial statements.
Fenix down (
talk) 08:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - with regard to the inclusion of stats from the club's non-League era, it's worth noting that an article like
Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent, a long-standing FL, includes results from the period when the club played outside the Football League...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 07:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as original PRODder - these kind of articles can be notable, but they are not automatically notable, and I see no indication that this example is i.e. has AFC Wimbledon's league record received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources as required by
WP:GNG? No.
GiantSnowman 07:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Mattythewhite and Lugnuts articles are generally only deleted for problems with content only
if they are unsalvageable .But this list can be improved as Mattythewhite rightly points out.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 08:16, 25 July 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.