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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Grand Rapids FC 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)

The article fails WP:NSEASONS for two reasons. First, the team plays in United Women's Soccer, a Division II league in the United States, not a top professional league. Second, WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and this article contains none of that. The lack of prose in the article causes it to run afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, which is another reason to delete it if not rectified. It is questionable whether there is enough independent, reliable coverage from which information can be drawn to write enough prose that would make the article consist mainly of well-sourced prose. While there is some local media coverage, this is routine and not significant and fails to rise to the level needed to satisfy the presumption of notability under WP:GNG. That guideline indicates that even where an article achieves the presumption of notability, the results of a common-sense discussion should prevail. Common sense tells me that the 2018 season of the Grand Rapids FC women was not so much more notable than the seasons of all 26 other UWS clubs that it is the only one that merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. The club didn't win its league's championship, and there does not appear to be anything special or notable about this club's season. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad that these good soccer articles are being deleted. 68.43.38.101 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This isn't even an article. It is a collection of statistics. I have no idea how one could conclude that this is a "good soccer article." There is more prose in the box notifying readers that the article is a candidate for deletion than there is in the rest of the article. Even if it were an article, and even if it were a good soccer article, the subject is not notable. Taxman1913 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, no notability proven in the article. Also, copying my comment over from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Grand Rapids FC season (2nd nomination): "Just a note as well regarding the use of references: common usage for match reports is to externally link it under the "|report=" part of the box, not as a reference. I believe the number of references would drop sharply if this were put into effect." 21.colinthompson (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NSEASONS. I'm not certain that sufficient well sourced prose about the season itself could be created from the sources available. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NSEASONS, WP:ROUTINE, per 21.colinthompson much of the same arguments and concerns are mirrored in the other AfD. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 02:17, 29 September 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.