1985–86 Queens Park Rangers F.C. season : No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.    "Stats only"  sources and a stats-only article with stats about a football club's 1985-1986 season.  North8000 ( talk ) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep crystal clearly notable as a season of a team in the first division, then the top flight of football in England.  That season will have been covered pretty much every single day in the papers of the time.  It just needs more sources.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Usual coverage for an English league team, and has WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 18:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Top flight season in England, meets general notability guidelines BFC Aspie ( talk ) 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, clearly notable.  Giant Snowman 18:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Yes the article lacks sources on view, however that doesn't negate it in anyway, League Cup finalists this season!  I really don't think think the nominator put too much thought into the nomination!  Govvy ( talk ) 09:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've nominated bad seasons articles before only to have them kept at AfD.  The problem is that a poorly created sports season stub can still be notable.  SportingFlyer T · C 09:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per anyone else above.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep —Is this a joke?  Of course this is a keep.  Top flight team in a major league in a major football country who made the final of a major cup.  They might not be found so easily via a Google News search, but the English top flight certainly received enormous coverage in the media, and there is zero doubt QPR received a cut of it.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Happy with whatever y'all decide on this, I was just working at properly doing my job, which is now done.   Regarding the critiquing of my nomination, please note that nobody has said or shown anything to establish that it has the required GNG coverage.   In this area, wp:notability is about having sources with in-depth coverage from which to build an article from.  Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 15:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's because this is such a flagrantly obvious keep.  SportingFlyer T · C 05:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply @ North8000 : It really shouldn't be that hard to establish something, there are sources to use, [22] , [23] , [24] , you can use just about anything of worth from the internet.  That took me what, five minutes to have a look for something GNG worthy.  WP:BEFORE does apply to you also.  Govvy ( talk ) 22:15, 30 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep