Deletion of 2014–15 Académica da Praia season

Comment: Per nom. I looked at the articles and the referencing (when there are some) that are either from "stat" sourcing, facebook pages, or even from another version of Wikipedia (2015–16 CD Travadores season) which everyone knows (should know or needs to find out) cannot be used for sourcing. |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and assertions that a source "might possibly be out there somewhere" as justification to keep seems a very week argument. 2016–17 CD Travadores season shows 9 references but six are from the same source and one is a large database of "stats" with the subject apparently "in there somewhere". The reference rsssf.com is more stats and stats presented as prose does not not become something else. The "prose section", common to all the articles, is all there is as the rest of the articles do reflect statistics of one form or another. All the articles are sourced primarily by "Konkuri" and rsssf.com. 2017–18 Académica da Praia season is one of the "better looking of the articles sourced only from these two and the large prose stat section (Santiago South Premier Division) is unsourced. 2016–17 Académica da Praia season lists 12 references of which 9 are in the "Santiago Island League (South)" "prose" section and all nine are from "Konkuri" that provides 10 of the 12 references (one dead primary link) and rsssf.com the 12th reference. These articles (the whole group) would likely not be good examples of anything to do with keeping articles to retain editors or not run them off. I see the primary editor has been confirmed as a sock puppet of another account and apparently both are blocked indefinitely. This gives me a headache because it seems the two accounts have nearly 100,000 edits and causes me to wonder how many of those might be "tainted". We have sourcing policies and guidelines for a reason and if something is contested the |burden falls on those seeking inclusion to |prove it. It is not an attempt to run anyone off by requiring subjects follow notability guidelines and demanding a certain quality of content in an encyclopedia to at least follow a minimum of some basic |fundamental principles of Wikipedia, This should be a given for anyone |here to build an encyclopedia. A good example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be these articles. Some are stats (with some presentation as prose) of an apparent parent article Santiago South Premier Division, that itself is a large stub-class article with a dead primary source (account suspended) and two references by the same author ''"Konkuri"'' that provides "Competition stats", "player states" and "team stats". This does give rise of concerns that Wikipedia is becoming ''"a repository for sports stats and less and less like an encyclopedia."''. I almost wish I hadn't looked now because the last article I listed is probably as good or better a candidate for AFD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL||WP:BURDEN||WP:PROVEIT||WP:5P2||WP:HERE)

Comment: per , etc. Agree with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: all per nom, fail  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFOOTBALL)

Comment: The current problem with these articles is the lack of sourcing to get them over , but it's possible. The Académica de Praia seasons, at the very least, were significantly covered in the press, including international press (Portugal). See, as an example: https://www.record.pt/internacional/detalhe/cabo-verde-academica-da-praia-junta-se-ao-mindelense-na-final-do-campeonato https://expressodasilhas.cv/desporto/2016/09/26/janito-carvalho-assume-comando-da-academica-da-praia/50310 https://desporto.sapo.pt/futebol/campeonato-nacional-cabo-verde/artigos/academica-da-praia-campea-de-cabo-verde-pela-segunda-vez-na-sua-historia.  and  are not exclusionary, and a better attempt at sourcing would easily get at least some of these articles over . The biggest problem here IMO is searching for sources from Cape Verde isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, I'm sure if we had better access to print language media there wouldn't be any problem at all here, as these seasons cover the top teams in the country.  isn't relevant here since the articles I reviewed all contain prose, and I don't understand the  argument at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NSEASONS||WP:NFOOTBALL||WP:GNG||WP:NOTSTATS||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: as per nom and . Wikipedia is becoming a repository for sports stats and less and less like an encyclopedia. And Greenman I agree that ''not needlessly driving away editors'' is not a reason to keep an article either strictly or loosely. This has nothing to do with red tape and all to do with inclusion criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS)