Deletion of 2018 Grand Rapids FC season (2nd nomination)

Comment: Passes , and that's enough. Yes,  is a thing, but |AFD is not cleanup. Fix it, don't delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTSTATS||WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: with a nod that I was the user that put the page up for AFD the first time. Still fails , as per N57's arguments. Also, the majority of the sources on this page are  coverage, either match reports or transfer news. Just a note as well regarding the use of references: common usage for match reports is to externally link it under the "|report=" part of the box, not as a reference. I believe the number of references would drop sharply if this were put into effect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASONS||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: As I stated above, an article that meets  only gains the presumtion of notability, not unquestionable notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per SportingFlyer & Smartyllama. Article possibly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: coverage is |routine and where there is coverage it's not . Fails . Also agreed that this is an unnecessary content fork. There is also extensive consensus that seasons at this level are not considered notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: The only important thing: this particular team's season passes  (and it may be the only one) through coverage in numerous reliable secondary sources. The prose-to-stats ratio argument is a solid one, but it's a fixable problem and doesn't go against notability. Local coverage is still coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails . I would suggest that coverage of the club's games during the season is relevant to the club or the league's season meeting , but not the club's individual season. Also, this topic is already covered at 2018 NPSL season
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASONS||WP:GNG)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Except the coverage is |routine for every source presently listed, and having routine coverage is not sufficient basis for an article. This is where  really needs to come up with standards for what season articles are presumed notable. The info and sourcing would be much better served in the Grand Rapids FC article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:FOOTYN)

Comment: Although I am the nominator, I am doing my best to keep an open mind. I read the prose content that has been added since the article was nominated for deletion. I cleaned up the grammar and spelling and tried to improve the content's readability without altering what the editor was saying. I do not think the article should be deleted based on the quality of the writing. So, I thought upgrading it would make it easier to evaluate the content fairly. In the four paragraphs of prose, I noted seven statements that lack citations to independent reliable sources. Five of these have no citations at all, and the other two have citations to sources that simply do not address the statement to which the reference is attached. If the 2018 Grand Rapids FC season truly received |significant coverage, it should be easy to find an independent reliable source that covered the team's NPSL season opener, but that match is mentioned in the prose with no reference supporting it. There is also no source given for the club's first match against Ann Arbor, the defending conference champion, who repeated in 2018. Surely, this was one of the biggest matches of the GRFC season. I added the reference to support the team's loss in the Milk Cup semifinals, since it was already in the article. However, that reference is merely a trivial mention. The source is addressing the Milk Cup final and mentions how Lansing United, one of the participants, got there. An eight-team tournament with a $5,000 prize like the Milk Cup is clearly important to a semi-professional team. A team that is receiving significant coverage would surely have a media outlet run a story about its semifinal match in such a tournament. A statement is made in the prose about the Great Lakes Conference playoff race and the five teams competing for two berths as of the midway point of the NPSL season. With these teams all in the same geographic region, if the team was receiving significant coverage, or even if the Great Lakes Conference was receiving significant coverage, a media outlet would have produced an article on this playoff race. Instead, the statement about the playoff race is made, and no supporting source is offered. There is also no source provided for the team's second match with the aforementioned Ann Arbor. Particularly since this was a win for Grand Rapids, and arguably the team's most important win of the season, one would expect that an independent reliable source for this result is available, but none is offered. Some of the sources cited may be independent and reliable, but it is questionable whether they are truly providing significant coverage. For example, the article on the WoodTV website "covering" the second leg of the Milk Cup quarterfinals reads: "Grand Rapids FC needed a comeback effort to steal a game away from the Muskegon Risers on Friday night. After falling down early, Grand Rapids came back to win 4-3. **Watch highlights from the game in the above video.**" That is the entire article. WoodTV did find a way to make three paragraphs out of that, but it is barely more coverage than daily lottery numbers receive. If this article is kept, the overall tone of the season recap section must be addressed, since parts of it read more like a post in a fan forum than an encyclopedia article.  says that "team season articles should consist '''mainly of well-sourced prose'''" emphasis in original, and this article falls far short of that. The noble effort to add prose in the two weeks since this article was nominated for deletion has only convinced me that it is not possible to have well-sourced prose in this article, because the 2018 Grand Rapids FC season did not receive significant coverage. Therefore, the article fails . Since well-sourced prose cannot be written for this article, it can never consist '''mainly''' of well-sourced prose. That being the case, the article runs afoul of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NSEASONS||WP:GNG||WP:NOTSTATS)

Comment: I agree with . However, this article doesn't need cleaning up. There really is no article here. There is a lede followed by a collection of statistics. There is no prose at all. Essentially, if the article is to be kept, it needs to be written, not cleaned up. Right now, it is very far away from the guideline at  that says "team season articles should consist '''mainly of well-sourced prose'''" emphasis in original. This article does not even consist ''partially'' of well-sourced prose
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP||WP:NSEASONS)

Comment: This article fails , , and . The event has only routine local coverage and the article was cobbled together, , not using any sources demonstrating the notability of the season as a whole
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASONS||WP:NOTSTATS||WP:GNG||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Surprisingly most of this is already covered by 2018 NPSL season and because of this I am going to say delete due to  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASONS||WP:CONTENTFORK)