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 -- Samir 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. United of Manchester season 2005-06[edit]

While there's a good case for keeping season-by-season articles on major teams, or on particularly interesting seasons for other teams (such as Wimbledon's promotion seasons, or Chesterfield's cup-run year), I can see no reason for keeping a season-by-season breakdown of a minor team in such absurd detail. I've not ((prod))ded or merge-and-redirected this, because someone's obviously put a lot of work into this and it seems fair to give other people the chance to make a case for keeping articles like this, especially since any decision here will set a precedent for other minor teams. Note to Americans bemused by the European football pyramid structure; this is not an article about Manchester United F.C., who probably are vaguely noteworthy; F.C. United of Manchester is a semi-professional non-league outfit founded by disgruntled fans who play in the Unibond League (the seventh tier of the English footballing pyramid) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually in the season in question they were playing in the North West Counties League Division Two, which is on the tenth tier of the ol' pyramid ChrisTheDude 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not the usual team that would be in a lower league. The team is skyrocketing through the league with a massive fanbase.SlideAndSlip 12:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody's proposing deleting the article on the team — but since even MUFC themselves don't have an individual article for each season (aside from the treble season, which was probably a more notable achievement than winning the North West Counties League Division Two title) I'm not convinced a seventh-tier non-league team warrants them — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before voting, you mention the Manchester United treble winning season being a notable season. I just wonder if the season in question for FC United of Manchester (FCUM), is notable, for the simple fact that it was not only their first ever season, but that they were Champions of that league in their first ever season. And that was maybe why the article was added and maybe could be a reason for it to be kept? Of course it might not be, and it might be that it should be deleted, but I just wanted to ask first?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was actually added by being broken out of the main FCUM article as part of a drive by the Non-League Football project to reduce the ridiculous level of detail on there, which included all this info on their first season, lengthy pen pictures of all the players, and a whole lot more..... ChrisTheDude 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I deliberately nominated this in a very wishy-washy way precisely because I can (just about) see reasons to keep it. However, since we don't have articles on famous seasons for far more successful teams such as Arsenal 03/04, Wimbledon 87/88, Liverpool 00/01 etc it does seem a bit weird for a non-league club's season to get a full article (even a big non-league club) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of the above for non-football types wondering what the hell I'm talking about: Arsenal's unique unbeaten season; Wimbledon's mob of no-hopers & rejects winning the FA Cup; Liverpool winning the FA, League & UEFA cups in the same season — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually created the page in the first place. The reason for the page was that FCUM's own page was being constantly updated to include minor trivia and essentially match reports, this page was essentially all the detail from that page, expanded a bit. Attempts to delete or prevent this happening were just being ignored etc. I assumed the best way to do this would be to create a season page - I know there are examples of 'good' seasons for other teams without pages, but so are there other examples of similar pages. It enabled us to strip down the main FCUM page without over emotional people whacking all the content they'd lovingly typed back in. I don't mind if it gets deleted, just make sure you keep deleting irrelevant comment and match reports off the fcum page. --Gavinio 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HornetMike 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact of their winning a title in their debut season is certainly worthy of inclusion in the team's article, but this is not a notable season. --Dweller 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a record of the first season of a club about whom their are acres of secondary sources. TerriersFan 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect back into main article - noteworthy as they are for a 7th tier side, I don't think we can support separate articles for seasons at the moment. It only needs to be a short paragraph - see a very relevant example, A.F.C. Wimbledon. Edit: there's already a perfectly serviceable paragraph on the season in the main article, so Delete.EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, team is probably too minor. Punkmorten 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was FCUM's first season and thus a very special one. Team isn't too minor, the last few years have seen a number of teams starting out in the minor leagues, but with the attendance numbers and regional importance of top clubs. There was a ton of independent articles and research about this sociological phenomenon. Malc82 09:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re all but your first sentence... This AfD isn't about the team - no-one disputes the notability of the team. It's the season that is possibly not notable. --Dweller 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dweller above, the team is probably notable, winning the division in their first season is possibly notable, but the season itself, I don't see it beyond sentimental (and therefore non-Wikipedian) reasons. Ytny (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to main article, but shorten. This is a minor league club, and probably barely notable in its own right. Having separate articles for each season is not warranted. Peterkingiron 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article exists because the decision was made by regular wikipedians who edit the team's article that the content here for season 2005-06 (which was originally in the main article) was too long and unwieldy. I don't see a case for it to continue to exist. Steve-Ho 07:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think dividing by team and season is far too detailed and crufty, and all such articles should be deleted. Qwghlm 10:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and any other season-by-season resume for any football club, including the major ones. Far too much detail. - fchd 06:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, possibly suggesting to merge it into a History of F.C. United of Manchester page. --Angelo 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Personally I was against to have season by season for every major team, history and season by season for every league would have been enough and include for major teams only season like MUFC 1998-99 etc.. It was decided that major team can have such articles. Now we see articles for such minor teams of so very low level. Can you imagine if every team, even from such level, has its own article about every season? There would have been million such articles in wikipedia. I think a brief about the history of FCUM on the article of that club is enough - User:KRBN 19:53, 8 May 2007 (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.