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 keep.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E) 08:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment What did a search per
WP:BEFORE give you? Championnat National is not a fully professional league but
SC Bastia is one of three major Corsican clubs with a large following so I would assume there's a lot of coverage of its matches.
Robby.is.on (
talk) 09:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The same could have been said of Deportivo La Coruña, which is more famous than Bastia. The article for the 2020-21 season was
deleted for the same reasons when it was relegated to the
Segunda División B.--
Sakiv (
talk) 13:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 11:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - in the absence of significant coverage beyond match reports and transfer news. Ping me if sources are found.
GiantSnowman 11:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - article expanded with sources which show notability.
GiantSnowman 16:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
@
GiantSnowman: I've added some material covering financial difficulties the club was at the beginning of the season. What do you think?
Robby.is.on (
talk) 15:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
A step in the right direction, but I'm still not fully convinced I'm afraid.
GiantSnowman 15:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
This is not how it works. This will be decided by the community.--
Sakiv (
talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, GS can have his opinion. You have not responded to my question regarding
WP:BEFORE above, Sakiv.
Robby.is.on (
talk) 16:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Why should Bastia be treated in a different way than La Coruña when relegated to a non-professional division. Their history should have no weight. The nomination is correct and the opinion of GS confirms this.--
Sakiv (
talk) 16:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I'm not well versed with AfD procedures. But does
Wikipedia:NSEASONS eliminate the requirement to complete "basic due diligence" to "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" (WP:BEFORE)?
Robby.is.on (
talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment The article would need to be improved with sources for it to be a keep.
Govvy (
talk) 12:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I have significantly expanded the article's storyline. The citations I included should easily satisfy
WP:GNG.
Robby.is.on (
talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep MEETS GNG, sources have been added and the article has also been expanded.
ArsenalGhanaPartey (
talk) 17:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets GNG, the article has good sources.
Pincheira22 (
talk) 23:13, 3 May 2022 (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.