Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 F.C. Halifax Town 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 no consensus. There is a general disagreement about whether the fifth tier passes or doesn't pass NSEASONS and whether this particular season passes or doesn't pass GNG. I suggest the NSEASONS guideline be clarified and, if necessary, then renominate this here. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 F.C. Halifax Town season

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

Fails

WP:NSEASONS JMHamo (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the same reasons as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Chester F.C. season . Discussions should be merged. Martinklavier (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear
routine match reporting, transfer talk, etc that this season has recieved sufficient, significant, reliable coverage in third party sources to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Professional club in a predominantly professional league. Conference clubs are included in the seasons template as well; surely if this one goes then the many other pages for the many other seasons of the many other teams must go too. Leo1802 (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:ROUTINE
coverage alone, no other choice but to delete the article.
Keep Same reasoning as
WP:GNG to be satisfied. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Long-standing consensus that we should not have season articles for non fully-professional leagues. Number 5 7 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets
WP:GNG with coverage available, the article may need some improvement however. Paul Bradbury 08:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - play in a predominantly professional league, and plenty of sources to meet the
WP:GNG of the season as a whole. --Jimbo^[online] 14:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - WP:NSEASONS states 'top' professional league. Largely a dump of stats and the 'timeline' section is also unencylopedic.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2015 (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.