Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldershot Town 1992-93

: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 on the balance of the arguments. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Aldershot Town 1992-93]]=

:{{la|Aldershot Town 1992-93}} ([{{fullurl:Aldershot Town 1992-93|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldershot Town 1992-93}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested prod. Season article about a football club that was playing below a fully professional level at the time and therefore fails the notability guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Should only have season articles on players at a professional level. Peanut4 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep/Merge - you don't need an article for two games, but if there's more, it should be kept. Since the team is in Football League Two now, they're notable per policy, and I don't see why the history of the club or its seasons wouldn't be the same. Similarly, for most sports figures, we mention their non-pro career, and I don't see much of a difference between a team that can move between levels and a player who can do the same. MSJapan (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The team was notable before they reached League Two, as is any other team that has played above Step/Level 10 (I can never remember whether it's Step 10 or Level 10, but I'm sure it's one of the two) of the English football league system. – Pee Jay 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Provisional keep - Provided that extra information can be found and that the article reaches a certain level of quality fairly soon, this article should stay. As noted above, the club now plays in a fully professional national league, so I see no reason why they shouldn't have a comprehensive set of seasons articles. However, if a certain standard is not reached soon, I might support deletion. By the way, the article should be moved to Aldershot Town F.C. season 1992-93 per the established naming convention. – Pee Jay 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman 16:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - this club is now playing in the Football League. It seems illogical to me to just keep those seasons where they played league football - why blow holes in a club's historical record? If this goes, then logically Aldershot Town F.C. season 2007-08 should also be deleted. We also have pages such as Thames Ironworks F.C. season 1895-96 and Black Arabs F.C. season 1883-84 etc. Smile a While (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:WP:WAX. Those season articles assert no notability other than that the teams would become notable in later seasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, It is two matches from playing in a non-professional league. Aldershot Town F.C. season 2007-08 should be kept in rational as the Conference is a fully paid professional league. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment - I agree that Aldershot Town F.C. season 2007-08 should be kept but the Conference is not a fully professional league. Smile a While (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Reply If you consider that all the players in the Conference have to have a wage, they are getting paid for their profession. This fact is true for all the Conference clubs. Making it a professional league. Govvy (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Players in the Unibond League get paid by their clubs, that doesn't make them professional sportsmen........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - but move per PeeJay. Comprehensive season articles for clubs are acceptable; the argument here that seasons played below acceptable levels of competition will create odd gaps in club histories and hideous looking templates. Moreover, just because we don't allow articles on players at these levels doesn't mean we don't allow season and team information for these levels, and this combines those two permitted topics into a more specific one. matt91486 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::CommentI am questioning all those that say keep, because the two matches clearly specify Isthmian Third Division which is very much low level non-league. We just don't keep season data for that low. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete - past articles on individual seasons for clubs like Chasetown and Maidstone have been deleted (unanimously as I recall) at AfD, and Aldershot were playing at a much lower level in 92/93 than those teams were doing in the seasons in question. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.