Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 Danish 1st Division

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1963 Danish 1st Division

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

"Statistics of Danish 1st Division in the 1963 season." and nothing more than statistics. Move to Wikisource? Bulwersator (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's in need of improvement, but season articles for top-tier divisions (and indeed some lower-level divisions) are notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs improvement not deletion. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meaningful content could be easily found by Danish football fans, and we at
WT:FOOTY] are in the process of setting up a relevant TaskForce. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:STATS and nothing else. Stedrick (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe you mean
WP:NOT#STATS. Cloudz 679 23:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - clearly notable. Needs work rather than deletion.
Wanderer 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - according to
talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I would agree, but I think the relevant section of WP:FOOTYN is referring to the notability of league articles themselves (e.g. Danish Superliga), rather than their corresponding season articles (e.g. 1963 Danish 1st Division). Mattythewhite (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Season articles are usually considered notable. This one definitely needs some work, though. – Kosm1 fent 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. I agree with the above comment and would like to seek the improvement in the quality of this type of article if we can get the Nordic task force up and running. (
Finnish Gas(Finnish Gas 18:41, 18 March 2012 (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.