User talk:Sjburton

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sjburton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to York City F.C.. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Auric talk 11:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prod removal[edit]

Hello. Can I ask you to reconsider your removal of the proposed deletion (prod) template from the York City season article. No non-league season article has ever been kept as a result of a deletion discussion as they fail our WP:NSEASONS guideline; the most recent one is here, and you can see links to all the other ones in there. I am loathe to waste yet more time of other editors with another such discussion, so it would be appreciated if you could restore the prod. Thanks, Number 5 7 09:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I know York are professional, but not all clubs in the Conference (I still can't bring myself to call it the National League) are, so it is not a fully-professional league, which is the agreed requirement for a season article (a full list of such leagues is maintained at WP:FPL) and which is why these articles are being deleted (e.g. the Dagenham & Redbridge example above). You are correct that there are previous York City articles that fail the guideline, but they have not yet been nominated for deletion. Cheers, Number 5 7 10:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Number 57, thanks for your reply. With regards to the York City season 2016-17, if it really is that big a deal that I've created an article about it then by all means delete it. I'd created it so the fans of the club could view all the signings this season and goalscorers etc. Or alternatively I would like to ask that it be considered that clubs within the Conference be added to the WP:FPL) as the league is becoming tougher and more highly recognised as it's reputation increases with the likes of matches being shown live on television. While obviously I understand the guidelines you have sent, I don't see the harm that the article I have created is actually causing by being there. As suggested, could the guidelines be changed? If not, then please go ahead and delete said article. Many thanks Sjburton (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FPL is a list of fully-professional leagues – the Conference can't be added to it until it becomes one (i.e. when all 24 clubs are fully-pro); it may be heading that way, but it's not there yet. Regarding the "no harm" thing, that could be applied to pretty much any non-notable topic on Wikipedia (I could write an article about myself), so unfortunately it's not considered a valid argument (we even have a section about it in the "Arguments to avoid" page: WP:NOHARM).

As requested, I have deleted the article. Of course, your contributions would be more than welcome elsewhere (such as 2016–17 National League), and I'm happy to answer any questions you have, so please don't let this put you off editing – non-League articles are generally in quite a poor state and we need all the help we can get! Cheers, Number 5 7 17:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'll have to wait until we get promoted again then to create a season article for York, hopefully next season. Many thanks Sjburton (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a decent start at least. Cheers, Number 5 7 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, why would it matter if the article had stayed up? Obviously I understand it goes against the WP:NSEASONS but surely if non league articles are in a poor state as you say then the best way to gain knowledge on them would be to let said fans such as myself create these pages and cite the correct references? Obviously I'm not trying to angry or wind you up, just doesn't seem like it's that bad to have the article up. Sjburton (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons mentioned in WP:NOHARM – i.e. once one article is allowed to stay, then another is and so on. When I said in a poor state, I was talking about existing articles (for example Newbury Forest F.C., FC Deportivo Galicia etc.). Cheers, Number 5 7 19:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that no articles have been kept is misleading. No AFD has resulted in a Keep vote, buy many (a majority of articles recently, given that many were bulked together) have resulted in a lack of decision, and the article remains - especially for teams that mostly have seasons in the Football League. There is no clear consensus for fully professional teams that have many seasons in the Football League, and are then relegated for a season or two. Beware - some editors are very good at partial truths - such as "no articles have been kept" when the truth is "many articles have not been deleted". Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]