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. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 Dumbarton F.C. season[edit]

1996–97 Dumbarton F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Under-referenced and non-notable article for lower division, part-time football club Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this does end up going then I'm concerned that others of a similar level like 1996–97 Livingston F.C. season may need looking at further Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Livi had some full-time players in 1997 "Jim Leishman has 14 full-time players and 10 part-time and the club leads the Second Division." Albeit not in a 'fully professional' league. I doubt if Dumbarton have ever had a single full-time player. You will remember that there is a very high bar of coverage required for these season articles per NSEASONS: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the precedent set in that discussion, I dare say a good hundred or so more season articles could probably be deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's a shame as Dumbarton have, I think, a full set of season articles with a lot of time and effort clearly having gone into their creation. But they are sourced almost entirely from one book and one club stats site, and for the majority of their history they have played in the lower divisions, so I just don't see these as having SIGCOV or meeting NSEASONS (there are a few periods of top-tier play which I understand would be valid for retention). What I would suggest is that the significant events and couple of lines from the overview of this and each invalid year could be grouped together under something like Dumbarton F.C. 1990s seasons, which I understand is an acceptable alternative to a set of individual articles. Crowsus (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good possibility. Alternatively, we could have a prose article like History of Dumbarton F.C. which could be split into articles if it gets too big, like we do with History of Liverpool F.C. (1985–present), History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–1985) etc. I think the community prefers this to just random season stats articles, which often drift into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory if we're not careful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs improving(sources wise), not deleting. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the author I have a vested interest in keeping. I have invested months of research into Dumbarton and just because I do not list every source does not mean that it is limited to a couple of books/archives. I thoroughly research every addition and usually detail the most relevant/detailed source. User:aitkegs (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give one or two more examples, User:aitkegs, of good sources? That would quickly end this debate. Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes do not adequately address the nom's concern.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean towards keep There are enough sources in the article and out there to technically pass GNG. Part of the nomination for deletion states the club is "part-time football club". I really don't understand that statement, there is no such thing as a part-time football club. The club file their accounts with companies house state the club run under "small companies regime" and have opted to not file their statement of income. [1], In the report it is indicated that the total number of employees is 23 for the year 2020. I can't see this being all the footballers, so it seems that the club is operating in a semi-professional format. So the season would fail under WP:NSEASONS. But that doesn't supersede GNG which can probably be sorted out. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Govvy, "part-time football club" is a fairly standard way in British English to refer to a team which has only semi-pro players..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: That's rather archaic terminology if you ask me. Even in the off season a club still has to be run. File it's accounts every year; year after year... Govvy (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Govvy: you are almost certainly right, but I was just pointing out that the expression is definitely used eg in this BBC article, which states Tickets and travel have had to be sorted, media engagements fulfilled, training venues secured and sponsors contacted, which is a heavy demand on a part-time club. Anyhoo, this is getting a bit off-topic now..... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've followed this debate for 2 weeks and I'm not convinced that the sourcing required to pass WP:GNG actually exists here. I believe that this should be deleted with no prejudice to being restored if someone does come forward with significant coverage of this season in reliable sources that are independent of Dumbarton F.C. itself. I really do believe that an article like History of Dumbarton F.C. would be more appropriate than having stand-alone articles for every single season which, in my view, borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We set the standards very high at this AfD for season articles and this was upheld at this DRV. It would be silly to keep this article on a season with much, much less in terms of evidence of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As said by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk), the article need to be improved, not deleted. Rillington (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Govvy. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Referenced, plus unlike many EPL teams, actually has prose. And per Govvy. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 6 March 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.