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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 D.C. United Women season[edit]

[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)

Proposing this alongside the other AfD for the same reasons. Team season that fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Sources listed are standings, a roster, and a few post-season awards, which don't demonstrate WP:GNG for the season. Fails WP:NSEASONS as the league not listed under WP:FPL so team seasons within that league aren't assumed to be notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Refs added. See also: 2012 D.C. United Women season. Hmlarson (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the SoccerWire reference is better, but I don't see how the other sources added address the WP:GNG concerns. Two of them are routine coverage (Boston.com and Washington Spirit sources, the latter of which is also WP:PRIMARY). The Washington Post article relegates this season to a footnote at the end of its article, so I don't see how that helps either. Jay eyem (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing important about this season, so no coverage. Giant Snowman 09:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources and probably NSEASONS as well. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS at all, the club didn't play in a fully-pro league. The first citation has one line about the club and doesn't address anything other than who they play their first game. The second citation addresses the club and not the season. One citation has a game report and the rest are WP:ROUTINE, after analysing all together this seems a clear failure for WP:GNG towards a season article. Govvy (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the keep per WP:GNG and the merge target to 2011 D.C. United Season (we do similar things with aussie rules articles if I remember correctly with the men's and women's season on the same page). SportingFlyer talk 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will say, due to the weird nature of how the ownership works and the intellectual property concerns in this particular situation, I particularly oppose a merge. Even though they use the name, it's not run by the same organization, and thus I don't think it should be merged into the 2011 D.C. United season. Jay eyem (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nom~~ Comment I maintain that deletion is the correct decision here. Those arguing in favor of keep are not explaining how the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage and the sources that aren't don't actually demonstrate notability of the season itself. The season fails WP:NSEASONS's presumption of notability because the team did not play in a fully-professional league as listed at WP:FPL. The proposal to merge to the relevant MLS team season would also be a poor decision because, despite sharing the same name as the MLS team, the teams do not share any ownership and only have a very loose affiliation. While there may not be as much of a precedent for women's seasons that fail WP:NSEASONS, there is an extensive precedent for men's seasons in the same situation being deleted (some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I just don't see how the article in its current state can reasonably be argued as keep. Jay eyem (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've already voted as the nominator, you don't get to vote again. Season notability is shown by ongoing coverage, as it's an event which takes place over a period of time. It's difficult to find non-routine articles about a sports season. And they do exist, and in a variety of different sources. [1] This is easily sourced, even if other teams may not be, and I maintain keeping or merging this information is proper. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was relisted for a more full discussion, and AfDs are not a vote, so it doesn't really make a difference if I "vote again". If in-depth coverage exists of these team seasons that are not assumed to meet WP:NSEASONS by playing in a fully professional league, then this needs to be demonstrated. Thus far, it has not been demonstrated (especially not the source you just provided, announcing a new assistant coach does nothing to establish the notability of this season), and using synthesis to combine a bunch of non-notable routine coverage to create assumed notability to meet WP:GNG is absurd. Did you look at the eight different examples of precedent that I provided that were almost the exact same situation? And you haven't even addressed why the specific merging you are suggesting is improper due to the nature of the ownership and intellectual property issues involved. I have no problem merging it to "D.C. United Women", but they absolutely should not be merged with the relevant D.C. United season articles. Jay eyem (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment usually that means other users who have not seen the discussion get the right to add to the consensus. It does make a difference because it looks like you're trying to swing the discussion towards your delete vote. I have no idea what would constitute non-routine coverage for a season. Numerous secondary sources reported on both this season and the 2012 season. Also, your eight precedents (three are red links) do not actually create precedent for this article: if an WP:NSEASON article can pass WP:GNG, it should be kept, even if the season isn't fully professional: it does not override WP:GNG. None of the links you provided mention that. At the very least this needs to be redirected. I still think a merge is proper so we don't lose the information. SportingFlyer talk 23:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, it is not a vote, so it is my arguments that are important rather than the "delete vote" or my "swing[ing] the discussion". And again, the precedent absolutely applies because its precisely the same situation as the others: None of the sources provided in this article offer significant and non-routine coverage, so it fails WP:GNG (how announcing an assistant coach is supposed to establish notability for this season is beyond me). And yes three are redlinks because they were PRODed and deleted precisely because they failed WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, and they apply because they were team seasons for teams that played in a non-fully professional league, thus do not pass that assumption of notability, and had inadequate sourcing like this one. You, and others in this thread, still have not explained how these "numerous sources" qualify this season for WP:GNG or why your proposed merger is inappropriate. A merge or redirect to D.C. United Women is fine, a merge to 2011 D.C. United season absolutely is not. Jay eyem (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to comment again, but not to !vote. Once again, please strike your bolded delete !vote. You are free to leave the rest of the comment but please don't WP:BADGER anyone. Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated, there are articles in reliable news publications which constitute continual professional coverage of the season. You keep saying WP:GNG isn't met, but I have no idea what you think the test for passing WP:GNG for a continuing event would be. Also, this is the first time I've ever seen an AfD nominator make an argument immediately following a relist. I'm not saying you're not allowed to, but it does go against norms, and I would please ask you to strike your vote. SportingFlyer talk 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would oppose a merge with the DC United article per Jay eyem even if his double !voting is entirely inappropriate. The clubs have no connection. It's not an appropriate target. Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This literally does not make a difference, but I've stricken it and replaced it with a "comment". And for the record, my asking for clarification and pointing out that points are inadequate are not badgering, since I'm not demanding that anything be done (other than the need for in-depth coverage, which is entirely appropriate for an AfD, and maybe why the first proposed merge had an inappropriate target). Jay eyem (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:21, 17 June 2018 (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.