Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 AC Nagano Parceiro season

2014 AC Nagano Parceiro season

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Severe lack of sources and content. The only reference is from a primary source. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Creator is globally locked. The page is not great, but is a part of a series of 2014 J3-League club seasons. Geschichte (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it’s part of an entire series of articles for the different Japanese football leagues which not only tracks the competitions year by year, but the teams too. Cutting out a single article in the series seems like it would break up the series for no good reason, when the information itself is super clearly presented, and threaded, in a way I haven’t been able to find anywhere else online.

In my opinion deleting it would take away something useful. For that reason, I have the page a solid edit tonight. I’ve still got to go ahead and add match report links to each individual game, but I think I at least covered the basics.

This is such a useful resource that I’m going to make it a mission to pick through all the rest of the articles in the series one by one, and expand / source each of those as well. So it would be really nice if you didn’t delete this one article as I’m doing that…

Vote to keep. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, new to this, didn’t realise I should have made a * and bolded my keep recommendation until I reread the guide again just now. Mea Culpa.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify - Significant sources have been added and an editor has expressed interest in expanding further. At minimum, move to draft to give editor time to continue to improve. Chris1834 Talk 20:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I’m not voting again, having already voted, but I’ll further explain my reasoning having spent the duration of this deletion discussion attempting to edit the article into compliance.

As the article stood when nominated (by a user who has since quit, after having several of his articles similar to this one likewise nominated for deletion / draftified, but then kept - having made “why are mine deleted when there are articles like these” type arguments), it completely lacked sources and content. The nomination was a fair cop. Since the nomination though, I’ve found and cited several sources, reworked the article in ways which I believe both clearly lay out the season, and that prove there was significant coverage in Reliable, Independent, Secondary sources, with the likelihood of there being more sources out there which I have not yet found (searching in Japanese, my second language, slows things down, but this was the first full season in a newly formed professional competition in a major developed country - the chance of there not being more sources that I just haven’t found yet is basically zero.

I would like to just remind people voting that the criteria is that sources proving notability are likely to exist, not that they are cited in the article as currently written. The appropriate policy is

- “ Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.”

I am not accusing anyone of arguing for deletion in bad faith, I think we are all trying to do what is right here, but I would like to ask anyone leaning towards deletion to ask themselves whether it is in part because they are not interested in the topic of the article, and don’t really consider foreign language sources to count when judging reliability on an English Wikipedia page.

I’m going to keep poking away at the article, searching for more sources, and editing if I have time, and honestly I think that efforts to gradually improve the article is a better way to approach this rather than deletion, but I’ll leave that up to you guys now that I’ve said my piece. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article has been improved, although I only see one independent/secondary source (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't really have a P&G-based view on this, but in general an article on a season of a sports team that's more than a stub and meets WP:V generally satisfies the criteria for a WP:SPLIT and has a valid navigational/informational purpose, even if there isn't WP:SIGCOV of the season itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting. Just re sources, some of them are press releases from the league, but apart from the one you mentioned, we have a report on the need for the stadium development / licensing requirements from an independent community development organisation, a historical overview of the stadium redevelopment from the government of another prefecture who is looking to build stadiums there, an article in an online soccer magazine explaining the promotion / relegation games system (it was the inaugural season, so the system was new) giving dates and teams for the matches, and finally an overview of the full season, and of individual matches (one so far, but I’ll add them all eventually if this article is kept) by an independent sports data collection and visualisation company which doesn’t just get the data from the official sources, but also watches the games to collect their own extra data, which it then synthesises into proprietary secondary statistic (Chance Building Points being the main one), and visual game timelines. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]