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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1988–89 Juventus F.C. season[edit]

1988–89 Juventus F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails: WP:NSEASONS:

"Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created"

and as such should be redirected to Juventus F.C.. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 00:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 00:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This is a joke right? You might as well delete all the early seasons of top flight football clubs then; this was the one you picked today eh? I understand it is not a well sourced article, but is that really the need to delete it? NSEASONS states "it is strongly recommended for sourced prose", which does not translate to "screw it, let's delete it". Usually we just put a reference tag on it, or better yet, find some sources? Stay tuned. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting the guideline. It says

"should consist mainly of well-sourced prose"

and it is

"strongly recommended that those articles be redirected"

if they don't.

We're discussing this article, not other articles that might exist. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did I know you were going to bring up other stuff exists? This is a massive amount of articles, how about 1931–32 Manchester United F.C. season, 1954–55 Liverpool F.C. season, basically anywhere from 1900–1990 X club season. Is that enough stuff? No, but today, it's this article, I get it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep improve the article. No basis for deletion. This nomination is absurd. Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Easily, far and away, the single most absurd nomination I have ever seen personally on this site. Thank you for this waste of time. Italia2006 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that this is not going to fly, and apologize for the hassle. I'm curious though, where does this "top team" exemption come from? It's not in the guideline, and season articles do get redirected for failing WP:NSEASONS. (ping Nfitz ?). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it mostly comes from common sense. Top tier seasons - especially teams like this - clearly don't fail WP:NSEASONS. Nfitz (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Ridiculous, the article should be improved, not deleted. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2017 (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.