1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season : Simply listing books, without giving enough information to meet WP:VERIFY , is not proper sourcing.   With current sourcing, does not meet WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 12:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Citing books is not an issue at all.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 13:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the 3 books I have used as a reference, the Rothmans Football Yearbook is now known as The Football Yearbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_Yearbook You will note from the article that the book contains statistical information on the previous season's Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League, as well as selected historical records for each club and all major competitions.  The Book has been published every year since 1970.  Based on the above, I feel that this book would be regarded by any British football(soccer) statistician as a reliable, independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  I would kindly request that you reconsider.  Hytrgpzxct ( talk ) 21:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no issue with the use of books as sourcing, but I do not see any evidence of notability.  Giant Snowman 10:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue was not the use of books, but the lack of detail in those citations, so that they could pass WP:VERIFY .  Onel 5969 TT me 14:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the feedback.  I will get a hold of the books and edit the page accordingly.  Hytrgpzxct ( talk ) 19:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : The article has now been expanded with additional sourcing.  Do you still favor deletion?  Cbl62 ( talk ) 20:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per new sourcing, but would prefer more non-local papers...  Giant Snowman 20:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Plenty of coverage for this Scottish First Division professional team just from Newspapers.com's limited collection of Scottish papers, in addition to the books discussing the season: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] etc.  .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 01:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the newspaper coverage above is sufficient for establishing that a decent article can be built on this subject Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 14:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:No original research .  There is no evidence that the 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season itself has been discussed in detail in any of the sources listed in the article or the online newspaper articles listed above.  It's hard to assume the many offline refs cover this topic in detail when all we have is a statistical table with no prose.  To me this looks like a classic case WP:SYNTH in which coverage of individual games has been spliced together into an article on the entire season.  In effect this is original research.  What we need is clear evidence of in-depth significant coverage of the 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season as a whole to demonstrate that the season itself passes WP:SIGCOV ; not just merely coverage of individual events within the season.  Until we see some textual evidence in a prose section of the article using these offline sources in a way that its clear these offline sources have in-depth coverage of the 1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season as a whole (ie retrospective comments/quotes/analysis about the entire season) I am not seeing a strong argument for keeping this article.  4meter4 ( talk ) 03:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In my opinion, significant coverage of the individual events that make up the season, which we do have in this case, are enough.  Per WP:BASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; .  Alvaldi ( talk ) 13:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG and WP:NSEASONS .  The article is not about the club, but about the SEASON .  None of the sources in the article or above have SIGCOV of the SEASON.  Source eval: Stats, no SIGCOV of SEASON :: 1.   "Average Home League Game Attendances".  www.fitbastats.com.  Retrieved 24 October 2022.  Not IS RS :: Ross, David (2001).  Everygame-The New Official History of Kilmarnock Football Club.  Stats, no SIGCOV of SEASON :: Cairns, Richard (2011).  Killie ‘Til I Die-The Players of Kilmarnock Football Club. Yearbook :: Rollin, Jack (1988). Rothmans Football Yearbook 1988-89. No sources in article are IS RS SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Looking at the links above, it is obvious they have not IS RS SIGCOV about the SEASON, but about the club. // Timothy :: talk 13:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In-depth coverage on the events of a season is what makes for a notable season... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't a team season article just a sub-article from a clubs history section? Per WP:SUBARTICLE " Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. " and I would think it was logical to split a history of club into several articles, each covering a single season. Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is also to be considered WP:NOSTATS . Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 14:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...which does not apply here as it is not an [e]xcessive listing of unexplained statistics. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thats a point of view. No information on why there was a lack of scoring, who the players in the team were, at what time they were saved from relegation. There are two phrases of prose which come from a main article with also two phrases of prose. For the moment it is mainly an unsourced  statistic. What's attendance? The number of minutes the mentioned players played? Maybe then of the number or spectators... oh, also the stadium is not mentioned. Did they even have a stadium, or were they allowed to play at the farmers...  Who knows. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 19:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because it doesn't mention the exact location at which the games were played or how many minutes per game each player played (which in my opinion would be making it closer to NOTSTATS) still does not make it an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics."  Also, do you seriously not know the meaning of "attendance"? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Another discussion that strengthens my impression that no keep vote should be allowed from the ones who do not expand the article. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 13:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Paradise Chronicle - It takes time, resources, sometimes money and some general studying/knowledge to be able to put together and add to articles. And with articles involving foreign topics or pre-internet topics, you have a much higher hill to climb. And even when people do put the work in, it just takes one person to come along and say, "nope, not good enough". There's also dozens of articles per day that get nominated and probably less than 50-100 people who even ever take part in these discussions because there's little enjoyment or fun to be had out of arguing with people over nonsense. If Kilmarnock was my local team, I could probably find information on this easy by going to the local library. But they aren't, and I can't just go to Scotland to get the resources needed to improve it further. Sadly, the newer notability rules didn't take this kind of stuff into account, so we're going to continue to have tons of issues until something gives in. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 14:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More excuses for no sources, that rejects policy and consensus. Read WP:V , WP:N // Timothy :: talk 14:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources demonstrating notability have been provided... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No they haven't as articulated several times. WP:BLUDGEONING the process isn't going to help your cause. You actually need to address the substance of the arguments being made against the sourcing through evidence. 4meter4 ( talk ) 19:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete GNG and Notability cant be ignored just because you have sources that mention it in passing. They all talk about a club, not the season Starship 24 ( talk ) 16:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're all articles discussing the club during that season , which is what is the determiner of notability for season articles. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the information is about the club , it belongs in the article about the club and shows notability for the club . Seasons don't inherit notability from their teams; if this were true, every season a notable club played would be notable. The subject of the article is the season , not the club during the season. // Timothy :: talk 16:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue An article about a season of a club is a sub-article of that clubs history. Moving it into the history section of the clubs article will eventually mean that we will have to split it up to sub-articles due to its size per WP:SUBARTICLE " Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. " which logically would be...each season of the club? Alvaldi ( talk ) 17:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having a sub article is fine; but the split off topic still has to pass core policies like WP:GNG and WP:No original research . The fact that the season itself is not covered in-depth in any sources presented here or in the article is concerning in regards to both of these policies. . As stated in GNG policy, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The main issue here is this article was created through original research/synthesis; which is something we can't support; even in split off articles. 4meter4 ( talk ) 17:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was not made with original research. We've got several sources listing the schedules and such, and then many more sources discussing the individual games, etc. This is notable and not OR. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-independent press releases and season schedule promotions are not significant coverage. We need sources which have in-depth independent coverage of the subject. This means sources with original analysis of the season, an overview of the topic with original insight, and retrospective commentary on the season. Splicing together non-independent press releases, promotions of the season's schedule, and coverage of individual events within the season is essentially OR/SYNTH and does not meet the standard of WP:SIGCOV . The editorial decision to bundle coverage of individual games into articles on seasons doesn't supersede our core policies at WP:No original research and WP:GNG . We can not have a collective article on a sports season without sources that directly cover the entire season with in-depth coverage. With no sources of that kind, we are essentially doing original research/synthesis to build an article and not just merely fleshing out gaps in the coverage of the season through the supplementary use of sources on individual games. It would be like writing an article on the human body by only using sources that address individual organs or cells but never looked at the whole body or the body in larger systems. There does need to be at least a couple sources with independent in-depth coverage of the season as a whole to demonstrate that this isn't original syntheses. We can't just ignore policies because its editorially convenient. 4meter4 ( talk ) 17:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Something like this then? An inseason in-depth independent coverage of the season. Anyway, this is starting to be some Catch-22 situation. We can't have a season article because the sources found are according to some editors about the club, despite covering events of the season, and thus belong in an article about the club. But if we include the information in question in the article about the club it will inevitably become so large so we have to split it per WP:SUBARTICLE . But we can't split the history section into sub-articles of certain time periods of the history of the club because the sources about the events of the season are really about the club and thus they can't be used to source certain time periods/season in the history of the club... Alvaldi ( talk ) 17:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that source is sort of half way there because it was written mid-season. But yes, this source is at least about "the season" itself. However, we need a minimum of two sources from the very end of the season which look back at the entire season. If the season is notable as a topic there should be media and academic publications about this particular season after it ended or at its very end. Find two of those and then I think SIGCOV is proved and it would be possible to avoid SYNTH. As for article size... the article currently has practically no prose section so I think you are putting the cart before the horse . 4meter4 ( talk ) 18:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would an article pre viewing the season also count towards GNG? Rupples ( talk ) 02:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would help in the sense that it would demonstrate some WP:SUSTAINED coverage and could perhaps fill in some details about the planning of the season. However, it would not solve the overall main problem of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH which can only be solved locating sources about the whole season after it has occurred. Sources written about future events are speculative and prone to inaccuracies as real world events often create changes in the planning and execution of events across time. Sources written after an event has occurred are much more likely to be accurate and are essential for verifying content when writing about events. 4meter4 ( talk ) 02:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, Rupples, an article previewing the season would count, as would one from the middle, or the end, or any point in the season, or just regular game coverage would count towards notability. Each of which we have here (except for preview and very end, as far as I can tell). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 13:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Explain, 4meter4, where is it said that we need a minimum of two sources from the very end of the season which look back at the entire season and that we need " academic " publications on one season (there's of course not going to be that) for it to be notable? I've never seen that anywhere (in fact, I'm pretty experienced in this type of work and you're the first person I've ever heard say that). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that should be readily obvious. In order for an event to be covered without WP:OR / WP:SYNTH we need reliable sources written about the event after it has occurred. Writing about an event using only source that happened in the middle of an event or before it has happened, or only using sources which lack an overall big picture coverage of the entire event results in an article built through original research and synthesis . GNG states, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Reasonably under both GNG and No Original Reaaserch policy we need sources which cover the entire season directly and in detail. I think I have said this many times already. Additionaly, without source demonstrating independent analysis or commentary of the the main topic, the overall 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season, the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth to pass WP:SIGCOV . 4meter4 ( talk ) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Much of the "pro-deletion" commentary above appears to be arbitrarily based on the naming of the article. If the article were instead titled "1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. team", much of the argument would be moot.  Strange, since in other sports, we use the "team" nomenclature. E.g., 1988 Michigan Wolverines football team . The notability determination should not rise or fall because one sport uses the "season" nomenclature and another used the "team" nomenclature.  Making the determination on this basis of whether the article title is "season" versus "team" reduces the matter to an absurdity. Cbl62 ( talk ) 13:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One is an organization, the other is an event. The notability policies are different, and the required sourcing is different. You could make an argument to keep by moving the page to a different title and changing the subject of the article. 4meter4 ( talk ) 14:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thats bureaucracy at its finest. Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uh no. Completely changing the topic of an article is a significant change and it matters. It isn’t just a matter of trivial semantics as it’s a fundamental shift on how the article is structured, sourced, and ultimately written about in a hopefully developing/expanding prose section.  4meter4 ( talk ) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not "completely changing the subject of the article" at all.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be exactly the same article, i.e. the history of the team for the 1987–1988 season, with the only difference being that we replace "season" with "team" in the title.  And that is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 15:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, no.  The article currently has very little information about the “team”.  Where are the names of the players, their coaches, etc?   A season article about an event, is not the same thing as an article on the sports team/club of a particular season which would be targeted more on the organization and its personnel as the primary topic as opposed to the individual games/events within the season.  If we were to retitle it, the article would require a substantial rewrite with different content.  4meter4 ( talk ) 16:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is basically what I call a list article or a compilation article like with various olympic events, statistical lists and sports seasons.  These aren't traditional articles.  An individual game isn't notable enough on its own unless its a title game, so you compile all of the games together and make an article out of it.  The only type of coverage you are getting on various seasons of team is what BeanieFan11 said - a preview before the season or some kind of post-season wrap up, which is going to downright mirror what this article looks like.  I believe the coverage is enough and I believe more is out there.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 13:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A published post wrap-up source with some original commentary in reliable RS is exactly the kind of source I've been asking for KatoKungLee.  Present two of those and SIGCOV has been met and we can put this to rest.  You can't just assert that it exists somewhere and vote keep.  Find it and bring it here or better yet put it in the article.  4meter4 ( talk ) 14:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Satisfies WP:GNG with sources presented in the article and in the deletion discussion by Alvaldi and BeanieFan.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 14:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please explain your thinking with specific evidence to back up your reasoning?  Can you please identify two sources which have in-depth significant coverage (as in original independent analysis/commentary) of the "1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season"?   Can you also explain how the sources as used follow our policies of WP:No original research / WP:SYNTH , and how they meet the guidline at WP:SIGCOV in covering the overall main topic?  And you're the one accusing me of WP:BLUDGEONING...  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @Beaniefan, asking for someone to clarify their position is not bludgeoning.  I would like to know what sources with "independent significant coverage" on the "1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season" are being used to justify a keep vote per GNG.  This is pretty normal query at an AFD discussion.  I'm also only asking for only two, so it shouldn't be difficult to copy paste them here so we can all look at them.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 4meter4 for sports articles mainly containing statistics, Wikipedia rules do not apply, see WP:NOTSTATS , WP:NOTMIRROR , you can argue with policies for days and weeks, a keep and a diminute expansion are enough to override the policies.  With the current sourcing and expansion by Cbl62, this article is in a way better state than most other articles containing sports statistics I saw.  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not really seeing how either of those policies apply here in overruling notability policies like WP:N or content policies like WP:No original research .  Both WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR are policies describing what wikipedia isn't and they aren't meant to be used to override notability guidelines or the ethical rules for content creation that undergird the project as a whole.  Fundamentally, there are no sources which directly and comprehensively talk about the primary topic of this article: the 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season.  The article as written here is essentially doing original research as would be done by a professional sports historian.  That isn't something we are allowed to do per WP:No original research .  If you want to do this kind of work, then do it on a platform that publishes original research content.  That isn't wikipedia per WP:FORUM .  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Expansion note .  The article has now been expanded to include the full roster as well as a sprinkling of the sources covering the season.  That should be sufficient, as AfD is not intended to determine whether an article has all of the information one might hope to see if it were being submitted for "Good Article" status.  The issue here is simply whether SIGCOV exists in reliable sources, and it plainly does.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 20:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :  thanks to the expansion of Cbl62 Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 20:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer .  I would appreciate it if you would weigh the strength of the arguments in your close; whatever the outcome.  I still strongly contend that this article is entirely based on an original synthesis of materials as no individual piece of evidence cited in the article or presented here addresses the main topic directly and in detail.  The article is built from many small pieces to present coverage of a bigger topic than what any one individual source actually covers on its own.  In effect we have an end product here not in evidence in any one source.  Further, the one source where the season is mentioned in retrospect is entirely dependent upon quoted text of the team's management, and there is no independent analysis or coverage of the topic independent of the subject.  The repeated calls to present evidence here with independent significant coverage have yielded nothing for a reason.  4meter4 ( talk ) 03:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Any professional football team in Britain will garner WP:SIGCOV every season and this one is no different.  David Ross's books outline and discuss the 1987–88 season in detail and I'm surprised only one of them is listed in the offline sources section.  The season will have been discussed in national newspapers at the time and not just the locals although, as a second tier club, there won't be as much as their would for a top tier club.  The main issue with the article is that is does not contain an overview section outlining what happened, it is just a list of results which is unfortunately the condition of a lot of these articles.  This, however, is an issue for improvement and not deletion.  Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 15:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  A final league table published for the Scottish First Division 1987–88 season would be an acceptable source from which to draw facts from regarding Kilmarnock FC's entire season.  Facts such as no.  of games won, lost and drawn (home and away, if shown), goals scored and conceded, finishing position.  Also, facts such as "Kilmarnock scored the 2nd lowest no. of goals in the division, after bottom of the table Dumbarton".  No OR/SYNTH is involved; it's merely a restatement in narrative of what is presented in tabular format.  Rupples ( talk ) 16:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SIGCOV in the article and presented in this discussion.   Certainly enough to pass WP:GNG .  Frank Anchor 16:31, 12 April 2023 (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