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. As was noted in the last relist the keep participants do not actually show how this meets any notability guidelines. While I am sympathetic to the idea of using parallel discussions as a guide as to whether or not something should be nominated (i.e. if similar stuff repeatedly is kept don't nominate something) once a nomination is made there is an obligation to show how the topic qualifies for notability. As that was not done here while delete participants, to the extent that negatives may be proven, attempt to show how it does not qualify. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1983–84 South Midlands League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I don't see how this passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - NSEASONS covers individual team seasons, it doesn't even mention seasons of a league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this league was step 8/9 of the pyramid? Where is the coverage of this individual season? Fails GNG from what I can see. GiantSnowman 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Eastern Counties Football League, Kent Football League, Essex Senior Football League, Combined Counties Football League they were at same level as South Midlands League and was a feeder to Isthmian League. Whee you delete South Midlands League, then you should another 10-12 leagues also delete. Read more about leagues of this level: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997–98 Kent Football League Denebleo 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for consistency – we have league season articles for leagues down to this level (as can be seen on {{1983–84 in English football}} – and per the outcome of the Kent League AfD. Number 57 14:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @Number 57: Can I ask, does failing GNG on all those articles not concern you at all? All those lower leagues season articles fail GNG, I find it somewhat disturbing you want to keep those like that considering you're an admin and wikipedia is all about the notability of the subject, it feels like you're breaking the rules here to keep something you like! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it does fail WP:GNG given the level of coverage similar level leagues get in the media today. Unless you've been through archives of relevant newspapers covering this season, I don't think you can definitively say this is the case. But as per my point above, I also believe it's important that Wikipedia is consistent in what it has articles on. As I think the Kent League AfD demonstrates, there is consensus that season articles on leagues at this level are valid (hence why there are numerous other articles on leagues at the same level in 1983–84). Rather than AfD individual articles, I would suggest that if you have an issue with the existence of such articles, you should start a more general discussion on where a cut-off should be. As both the leagues and clubs at this level are considered notable, I don't think its unreasonable that it follows that league seasons at this level are a valid content fork.
  • Also, I didn't note it in my response above, as ChrisTheDude states, NSEASONS is not a valid deletion rationale, because it applies to club seasons, not league seasons. Number 57 12:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment at the 85-86 AfD. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe that Number 57 demonstrates this to be useful to readers, that is, having a consistent set of such articles provides reader-friendly and -desired information that would be less convenient anywhere else. Ultimately, despite a bizarre section in a certain essay, this is what all our notability guidelines are intended to be, and indeed the only reason we should do anything at all. Or -- to speak of misapplied essays -- this is exactly the kind of thing the much-misunderstood WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says we should have. Vaticidalprophet 21:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence multiple, reliable sources are discussing this league. Eldumpo (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are no reliable sources presently giving enough coverage to this to have an independent article. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per User:Denebleo Nott Mesjing (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I notice that the two for the prior seasons were kept at AfD whilst this keeps being relisted so for this to be deleted would be a bit of a clusterfuck. A grouped AfD here would have been far more useful here, but as there was consensus to keep the 84-85 and 85-86 season articles, the same ought to apply here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there needs to be a much wider discussion at WT:NSPORTS or WT:FOOTY or somewhere appropriate. I have serious doubts about whether any of the league season articles at this level actually can pass WP:GNG and nobody has put forward any reasonable argument that they do pass GNG. That being said, deleting one season in the South Midlands League when all the others exist and all the seasons for the other leagues at the same level exist, probably isn't the best way to go about establishing such consensus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a wider discussion is the way to go when you have a (large) set of articles with quite clearly defined boundaries. AfDing individual articles in the set is rarely a good way to start. I would suggest WT:FOOTY is the best place to have such a discussion, as league season articles are not covered by WP:NSPORTS. Number 57 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Number 57. Riteboke (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2021 (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.