Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1949–50 Colchester United F.C. season

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1949–50 Colchester United F.C. season

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article fails WP:NSEASONS as Colchester were yet to be in the football league. NSeasons is quite specific that a club has to be in a professional league to qualify for a season page. I also fail to see how this passes WP:GNG, there are not enough multiple independent sources. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NSEASONS. Lots of detail from fan sites, but nothing of note and no significant coverage from independent sites. If sources are found please ping me so I can re-consider. Giant Snowman 10:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources added. Giant Snowman 07:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This season article is part of series of articles on the club's seasons. The majority pass NSEASONS. If only seasons in professional leagues count, then we will end up with gaps for when they dropped out of the football league. I think it better that the whole series gets evaluated for notability. Otherwise, what do we do with articles like 1883–84 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season? Jts1882 | talk 14:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Series? 1883–84 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season looks like it fails both NSeasons and GNG. I don't know any policy towards a series. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: that's a silly suggestion. Imagine a club get promoted to the Football League for one season, and then go back into non-league obscurity. Are you saying they deserve an article on every single season? No. In this case, con sider redirecting the season articles to relevant prose sections on History of Colchester United F.C.. Giant Snowman 09:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again. Obviously in your example you wouldn't assess a club record to justify a series of season articles based on one season in the top league. But ask it the other way, if you had a club who had a century of seasons in top leagues and they spent one season outside the top leagues, would you omit that season? What about Rangers a few seasons ago? The lower leagues in Scotland aren't fully professional. If each season stands alone, there are a lot of season articles for top clubs that need deleting, starting with the Man Utd ones. Jts1882 | talk 09:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral defaulting to weak keep. Unfortunately, we have a habit of reading WP:NSEASONS as if it is a hard rule which overrides WP:GNG. This is a decently sourced article, and there's enough there that I would presume the article passes WP:GNG, but unfortunately many of the sources are to websites supporting the team which may not be completely independent. That being said there are enough sources here for me to presume other sources exist that would allow the article to be expanded, but it's not impossible all of the sources are already in the article - I'm not sure how Colchester were covered in the late 40's. If a club's season has been continually covered by independent secondary sources to the point of passing WP:GNG, regardless of where they play, there shouldn't be any issues with keeping the article. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More convinced this meets WP:GNG after Nfitz's reference addition. Keep. SportingFlyer T·C 07:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. This kind of level of detail for a non-league season is the kind of thing that I would expect to find on a specialist fan site, but not on Wikipedia. We already have 1949–50 Southern Football League (which could be improved with a results grid, top scorer etc) and List of Colchester United F.C. seasons to cover their non-league history. Number 5 7 21:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a few references @GiantSnowman:. There were several noteworthy things during the season including winning the Southern League Cup, playing in one of the first soccer games to be aired on television, and being promoted to the fully-professional Football League at the end of the season. Doesn't quite meet WP:NSEASON though I'd expect most teams that have a strong enough season to win promotion to a fully-professional league will meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it meets WP:GNG which is the standard required. WP:NSEASON doesn't really say much other than season articles can be written for clubs in top leagues and should use prose. It doesn't say being in the top leagues is absolutely necessary and implies that the general notability requirement is what is important, i.e. playing in top leagues establishes notability. If playing in top leagues establishes notability, then a season where a club gains entry to that top league must also be notable. Jts1882 | talk 08:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a tangent but unfortunately your last sentence there's a logical fallacy - if a team gets promoted to a league covered by WP:NSEASONS, but their promotion campaign isn't covered significantly in the media, that season would not be notable per WP:GNG. I would read WP:NSEASONS to say - was the season in a top league? If no, then does it pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 12:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, clubs from smaller towns like Colchester will mainly get covered in local press, which makes it hard to find digital versions or even libary archives these days. However, Colchester United was mentioned several times in The Times during that season because of notably results in the FA Cup (e.g. here) and announcing their election to the football league (here). Jts1882 | talk 08:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With The Times paywalling their archives - gosh, £104 a year just to see historic articles despite my long-standing account - perhaps what would help is adding some of these references to the article, maybe with some quotes if the headline isn't particularly descriptive. It does though look like we are at improve not delete though. Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Edit - oh, I see you added one! Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Colchester played in a regional 4th tier league which is enough to doom the article. Consensus has it that non-league season articles are not notable. The coverage of their election to the league and cup win is routine and still fails GNG.Dougal18 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2019 (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.