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 speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1986–87 Real Madrid CF season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 09:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a good start when you start reading the nomination to see what I really said. The Banner talk 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be a good start for you to read anti-Apartheid books when you start the massive nomination against a Mexican editor of 15 articles and falsely claiming are unsourced. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seasons for one of the most prominent and successful sports teams in the history of the world are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Ravenswing 23:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2022 (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.