Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, following on from consensus and showing a conclusive 'delete' vote here, too. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08

Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Season article for a club that doesn't play professionally, following on from consensus here. Simon KHFC (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Removed unnecessary duplication of signature. Simon KHFC (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. According to the Tamworth F.C. article, the club is professional - a lot of conference clubs now are. This doesn't seem any worse than all those excessively detailed articles about single seasons of American college (american) football teams.--Michig (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That seems unlikely to me, it could do with being verified by an independent source. Tamworth were certainly semi-professional as of 2004, since Adie Smith left Kidderminster Harriers F.C. to join Tamworth because he no longer felt he could play professionally. Things may have changed in the past three years but given Tamworth's fan base, level of finance and the league they currently play in (Level 6) I don't see how they could sustain professional football. However, if anyone can verify that they are professional then I'll probably strike my nomination. Simon KHFC (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-if or remove. If the data is correct and all of it can be verified then I am inclined to keep it for recorded history of a club. I am one of those people that like to keep every record if we can. :) Govvy (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - these articles should be accepted solely for clubs with at least nationwide notability. And I doubt Tamworth have such a massive impact in English football. --Angelo (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angelo. – PeeJay 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, if the players are not notable the individual seasons sure aren't either. Punkmorten (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly not a notable topic much beyond the boundaries of Tamworth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, or at the least smerge somewhere. Normally the Conference North would be too low to bother with season pages for, but Tamworth were in the Conference premiership until last season, and also made the final 64 of the FA Cup that year, so they're just bobbling on the edge of the required notability for season articles to make sense. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Surely if someone is willing to keep the page up to date, (and there has been regular updates to the article), then this alone proves it's notablity to be included in wikipedia. I though that to be a notable article the criteria included the fact that it had to be regularly updated and/or visited by users on a regular basis, therefore this article is notable enough to remain on wikipedia. If this page is deleted then it calls into question the viability of all season 2007-08 pages currently on wikipedia does it not? Please respond to my usertalk page, thanks Dreamweaverjack (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • According to your reasoning, even Very Amateur F.C. season 2007-08 would be notable in case someone keeps it updated. I don't really agree with this. --Angelo (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nor do I. We recently saw at AfD that someone was prepared to maintain a season page for Torrington F.C., who play in the extremely lowly North Devon Football League, but just because someone was prepared to do that donkey work doesn't get the article a "free pass" onto Wikipedia. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Non-professional teams should not have season-by-season articles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Punkmorten. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this and all "season 2007-08" articles - clear case of extreme recentism. - fchd (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the many reasons listed above. Ref (chew)(do) 12:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it amazes me on here, some people really have nothing better to do with their time then delete off other peoples hard work, Tamworth are a professional football outfit and this is a regularly updated page with very useful information hurting nobody, but we have people wishing to delete it, I really don't know why I bother. Stew jones (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, if you didn't want your "hard work" to be deleted or modified, you shouldn't have submitted it to Wikipedia. That is one of the things you agree to when you submit an edit to a page, so it's not even your hard work any more — it's Wikipedia's hard work now. – PeeJay 21:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Some people need to take there heads out of there arses. Leave this page alone! Go and do something worth while and delete Steve McClaren's page! Jonesy702 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Stay civil please. Also, confine yourself to reasoned argument, as abuse will not change any consensus decided here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - If a team is notable enough for an article I see no reason why there should not be sub-articles where, as here, the material would overbalance the main article. This also happens to be way better sourced than many football articles, as a BTW. The page should be revisited at the end of the season and, if it hasn't been kept up-to-date, it can then be deleted. But for now I see no reason for it not to be kept. BlueValour (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - see пﮟოьεԻ 57 and Angelo re: not keeping pages just to update them. Ref (chew)(do) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - besides that, we need to set a notability cut-off point for clubs' individual seasons. Personally, with regard to English teams, I think that only Football League and Premier League teams should have them. – PeeJay 13:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - why do "we need to set a notability cut-off point for clubs' individual seasons"? We are not short of server space. Provided WP policies are not contravened (it is verifiable, not original research etc) then the content of articles, and any sub-articles, is a matter for the editors of the articles with the talk page being the final arbiter in any dispute. If it is considered that the season articles are considered too unimportant then it calls into question the notability threshold for clubs. The answer is not to delete perfectly respectable pages but to rethink the cut-off for notability for the parent organisation. BlueValour (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Tamworth are deemed a notable club, so therefore season articles on the club should be allowed in my opinion, providing all the information is verifiable (judging by the 21 references this shouldn't be a problem). Dave101→talk  16:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

*Keep There are some really weak arguments expressed in this debate WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT but fundamentally the article is verifiable and meets the general Notability guideline with coverage in reliable national (BBC) sources. Unless and until a notability guideline is agreed upon this area this article should be kept. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Striking my previous, not so convinced after thinking again, changed to Neutral. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • There are three references from the BBC, and two of those stories only exist because they also involve other clubs playing in national leagues, that doesn't make it notable enough as far as I'm concerned. Simon KHFC (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it matters what you think really, most people agree that Tamworth are a noted club, shame you don't take as much pride in your team as I do in mine, do you get your kicks off trying to delete other peoples hard work off? Stew jones (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody has claimed that Tamworth are not a notable club, but is an article about their current season really notable? I think not. To repeat what Peejay said earlier, if you didn't want your work modified you shouldn't have submitted it to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, if you want to keep a record of Tamworth's results and players it seems to me that you would be better off starting your own website. Simon KHFC (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question I'm not familiar with intricate natures of soccer futball clubs (I can barely even wrap my head around the NCAA structure, even after 40 years), but aren't all teams in a professional league basically notable, if the league or conference itself is? • Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - Yes, but not all connected articles (such as this seasonal performance one) are deemed notable or appropriate by all interested editors. Allowing an article on Tamworth F.C. is not being questioned, that already exists without challenge - allowing a Tamworth F.C. off-shoot of this nature, though, is what is at stake here. Ref (chew)(do) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And Tamworth aren't in a professional league anyway. Their own article claims that they are fully professional, but if this is true then they must surely be one of only two or three fully pro teams in the Conference North..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
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.