Wiki How:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus. This AfD seems to have descended more into a discussion of NSEASONS and claims of Bias and the like, neither of which are suitable for this discussion. Whilst there is little discussion here to support GNG, I'm not seeing a strong concensus to delete. Given the other discussions here, I think a no consensus close is the best option with the potential for this to be revisited again at a later date for a more focussed discussion. Fenix down (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, which are the agreed guidelines for this type of article. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sourcing in the article doesn't demonstrate GNG, but a cursory before search shows the club and league is receiving ongoing coverage this year. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is significant coverage surrounding the top two flights of women's football in England at the very least to the point where these fully professional teams meet GNG. Propose WP:COMMONSENSE is applied to the fact that while the second-tier is not fully professional, those teams that are professional in that division meet GNG and at worst the article simply needs expanding and improving, just like the vast majority of EFL League Two team's season articles which have the same issues but are left published. To have 92 men's team season articles and actively go out of the way to limit women's team season articles to 12 seems incredibly problematic. The current notability criteria was created with the men's league's in mind and needs to be adapted to fit GNG teams in women's football. Hjk1106 14:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Dougal18 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - maybe we should move this to the draft space until GNG is demonstrated? Spiderone 17:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Potentially although per my earlier concerns regarding NSEASONS criteria created without taking the structure of women's football into account, may I suggest a simple solution would be to mirror the fact that all men's season articles that fit GNG do so by virtue they are also eligible for the nation's premier league cup (e.g. EFL Cup). Applying the same logic to the women's equivalent (e.g. FA Women's League Cup) would enable professional teams who would otherwise meet GNG but get relegated to the second tier and still compete in the professional league's cup competition, do not lose notability on a broadstrokes technicality. Per this example, semi-pro teams like Blackburn Rovers and Charlton Athletic would still not meet GNG but professional second tier teams such as Liverpool and London City Lionesses would. Appreciate the feedback. Hjk1106 21:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious when the WP:Footy lads came for the Doncaster Belles season articles that the "end game" would be a purge of all women's season articles. That's why I was surprised and disappointed that yourselves who spend hours doing such great work on them never bothered your arses to !vote in the recent AfDs. Don't worry, there is the opportunity for you to remedy this oversight at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active#9 October 2020. You're welcome :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Even leaving aside that this is part of quite a sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles, this particular one clearly meets GNG. As others have noted, there is currently elevated "Sigcov" around English women's football. That might not be to everybodies' tastes but please remember Wikipedia is not the place to try and "right great wrongs". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Routine match reports, transfer news and squad lists are hardly WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you vehemently hate women's football - as is your right - I don't know why and I don't much care. But I do think others should take that into account when looking through your unending daily deletion requests. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not one person has actually brought forward any evidence that this passes GNG Spiderone 19:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother? You will only pretend it is "routine" or "refbombing". Editors can check for themselves. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per AfD guidance If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL Spiderone 20:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion - has anyone who has so far objected put any further thought into my earlier suggestions regarding better adapting the current auto NSEASONS criteria for Championship teams? Surely fully-professional teams (with full senior internationals no less) that continue to contest the premier League Cup competition meet GNG and if we are to AGF then this simple adaption would relieve you of any objections based purely on the current technicality that some Championship teams remain semi-pro that you all seem to be hiding behind. Hjk1106 20:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid suggestion. It might be worth starting a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football unless there's a better forum for it somewhere else Spiderone 20:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. My only hesitation with that is it raises the exact same concern it seeks to address - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football doesn't seem the appropriate place considering it is as much about women's football as the NSEASONS it created. Hjk1106 21:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't hiding behind it, it's trying to figure out what is a reasonable cutoff for notability. Individual team seasons that meet WP:GNG will be kept whether or not they play in a fully-professional league. Honestly I think bringing it up at WT:FPL for the Championship specifically would be worthwhile. I'm not sure why it gets ignored so much; even though it is just an essay, it's an excellent starting point for establishing a base notability for teams and players. Jay eyem (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage, and fails WP:NSEASONS for not playing in a fully professional league. Ongoing coverage is not sufficient justification for an article when that coverage is routine coverage. Honestly not as sure about the COMMONSENSE proposal; I don't see a real compelling reason to keep or delete, but I'm not sure where the assumption of notability for team seasons for the second tier of women's football in England comes from. The current state of the citations consist of player signings, match reports, and cup draws, which doesn't constitute significant coverage, so I'm inclined towards deletion. It is also completely inexcusable for user Bring back Daz Sampson to be making such inflammatory remarks of Spiderone and I hope that they will assume good faith in the future and that they will strike their remarks. Jay eyem (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely baffled here - which "inflammatory remarks" do you think I should strike? Maybe you should strike your false claims that WP:FPL (a bullshit essay) is linked to NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lines I think you should strike include, but are not limited to:

"It was obvious when the WP:Footy lads came for the Doncaster Belles season articles that the "end game" would be a purge of all women's season articles."

"Don't worry, there is the opportunity for you to remedy this oversight at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active#9 October 2020." (this constitutes canvassing)

"Even leaving aside that this is part of quite a sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles"

"Clearly you vehemently hate women's football"

"But I do think others should take that into account when looking through your unending daily deletion requests"

"Why bother? You will only pretend it is "routine" or "refbombing""

"Maybe you should strike your false claims that WP:FPL (a bullshit essay) is linked to NSEASONS"

These are all arguments made in incredibly bad faith and have no place in a deletion argument. And FPL is linked both to NSEASONS and NFOOTY which address that leagues met are "top professional leagues", which WP:FOOTY maintains at WP:FPL. There is no clear statement of what makes a league "fully-professional", which is an issue, but if a competition is missing, it can always be brought up at the talk page. Plus individual seasons still need to meet GNG, which has not yet been demonstrated. We are not here to right great wrongs, only to argue about notability of the subject. Jay eyem (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I deliberately haven't speculated on anyone's motives or made any aspersions of bad faith (unlike you!) But Spiderone's hyperactivity at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts is a matter of fact. And - as others have noted - it is striking how many of the discussions have been closed in questionable circumstances, by an openly partisan Admin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really need to be brought up at WP:ANI? This pattern of uncivil editing and bad faith has continued across multiple discussion pages and has no place on Wikipedia. Argue for the notability, and keep your aspersions out of this. Jay eyem (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Jay. You've had your !vote now I suggest you cease repeating yourself and allow others the same courtesy. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. For this article, there are some sources which clearly show coverage: [1] [2] even though the ins and outs of the season contain more local coverage: [3] [4]. My educated guess based on the level of coverage the league receives is that this will be a notable season. Clear keep (already voted above). SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify what is meant by this? You can't just get rid of a Wikipedia guideline. They may not be strict policies but guidelines exist to guide policy decisions. NSEASONS is really just a starting criteria for presumed notability; an article still needs to pass GNG. Ultimately that is what an AfD should be closed on. Where there is a significant gap is between the guideline NSEASONS, which states "top professional leagues", and the WP:FOOTY essay FPL, which uses the more stringent criteria of "fully-professional leagues"; THAT seems to be causing concern. For football/soccer, GNG for team sports seasons are guided by NSEASONS which is in turn usually guided by FPL, but if a season still meets GNG otherwise then it should be kept. I'm confused on where the issue lies here.

As an aside, I'm not sure here is the best place to discuss that in-depth. Maybe it should be brought up at WT:NSPORT or WT:FOOTY? I have tried multiple times to get clarification for FPL before but there's been little effort to write out a definition. Jay eyem (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where User:Jay eyem does NSEASONS say fully-professional? It only says professional. This is a national league, with signficicant media coverage - more than enough to source a decent article. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive consensus at AfD that FPL is used as the cutoff for team season articles. Even arguing in the alternative, NSEASONS specifies "top professional leagues", which a second tier clearly is not. And if there is significant coverage, it has not yet been demonstrated. Jay eyem (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Needed Comment Disagree with using NSEASONS for any women's football teams, leagues or seasons for the stated reasons that it wholly and historically biased against women's sports as editors here have applied it. I would also be interested in how many women were involved in the writing of the WP:FTL essay but that's another topic for some other time. Interjecting some much needed civility into the conversation now, as that seems to be severely lacking, so please don't attack me and try to understand where I am coming from. As Spiderone has stated, WP:GNG is a the best solution we have at the moment, barring further clarity on other guidelines and essays. Does this particular season, as it stands now, hold any significance whatsoever per the letter of the law that is GNG? Fenix down is correct. If you believe so then make sure the article is sourced. This isn't the 1940s or even the 1990s. Find sources to prove it or this particular season doesn't belong. That is not to say the club doesn't pass GNG. We are talking about one season. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 12:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets NSEASONS as the team plays in a top professional league (NSEASONS, unlike NFOOTBALL, doesn't require full-professionalism). There's more than enough media coverage and sources to write a decent article. And easily meets GNG with recent coverage like this and this. Removing articles like this is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"TOP" has a very clear and specific meaning, and a second tier absolutely does not meet that definition. How is that not clear? The two sources you provided are clear examples of routine coverage and do not cover the season in depth. Jay eyem (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top seems to mean fourth tier for male football leagues in the same country, with many examples of seasons articles fifth tier teams surviving AFD. We should be fighting WP:BIAS not perpetuating it. If a league is getting frequent, detailed coverage, for other than just matches, then it is notable ... this is not an example of ROUTINE coverage. Top doesn't mean first. England, Spain, and Italy are all top European teams - but there's more than one. Nfitz (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That literally makes no sense, those other leagues easily pass GNG as do their various team seasons. The same cannot be said here. And no, getting regular routine coverage is NOT sufficient to pass GNG. There should be sources that cover the entire season in depth. That should not be hard to find. Plus that definition of "top" you are using is even more restrictive than I would use, so I don't see a compelling argument there. Jay eyem (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay eyem: If "TOP" has a very clear meaning then does that mean you are changing your vote on the 2013 Belle's season as they played in the TOP women's league in England that year and in years before that? Or is this a case of selective use? It applies here but not there. That's the problem with giving an essay precedence over policy and even guideline whether there is consensus or not. The rule is WP:GNG and nothing else. When you start adding mud into the water it gets less clear, not more. WP:GNG works for modern subjects, say post 1970's. The issue that remains is in historical context which would be pre-1980's when subjects about and on women and aboriginal topics were not discussed in the mainstream because they were still considered "less than" important to the Euro-American male dominated society. That is an issue that needs to be addressed but one that requires a delicate balance and the use of WP:COMMONSENSE. WP:NSEASONS is a guideline, I will give you that. WP:FPL is an essay, and one that states it is not complete. Neither supersedes GNG. That is the starting point for EVERYTHING on Wikipedia, not NSEASONS, certainly not an incomplete essay in FPL. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, GNG still has not been demonstrated for that season as a whole, whereas the relegation is clearly notable. And re:common sense, the content of the article as it is now is much better suited to be merged into the main article Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. (also WP:OSE is not an argument to keep this or that article). And yes, I agree that GNG needs to be the basis for the decision to delete. That requires significant coverage of the topic in detail. Regular routine coverage does not suit that. Regular match reports do not suit that. Signings, transfers, and coach hiring do not suit that. Is there a bias problem against women sports on Wikipedia? Probably. But there is also a cultural bias against women's sports in society as a whole, and we are not here to right great wrongs. If a season meets GNG, it should be kept, regardless of whether the team is a men's team or women's team. Jay eyem (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay eyem: I hear that argument a lot. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. So its purpose is to perpetuate them? To champion them? I don't think that means what you and others thinks it means. Because for Wikipedia not to use WP:COMMONSENSE and include articles on women and women's topics (such as sports) even though they have been proven to be discriminated against and treated with bias means it has now become a proponent for such things and continues said bias. I have read WP:RGW and no where does it say anything in regards to what everyone uses it for. No one is trying to add something that isn't true or put forward an assumption or theory that is unsubstantiated. We can argue whether the facts of what is presented makes the subject notable or not. I have no issue with that. But the use of the word "probably" in your response tells me everything I need to know going forward. Respectfully, there is no "probably". That's the problem in a nutshell. There is still a denial of reality and until that denial is overcome there will always be a bias present. You argued the facts very well, and presented something we could debate upon, until you got to that point. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you do not need to @ me, I am watching the page. Second, not righting great wrongs means precisely that; we don't attempt to fix the encyclopedia for ideological reasons. It's a very nasty conclusion to think that discouraging ideological editing means that we condone the bias. And please cut the personal attacks; I am not familiar with all the systemic bias on Wikipedia, which is why I used the word "probably". If you would assume good faith here that would be helpful. Jay eyem (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And assuming that my arguments are ideological and not founded in facts isn't assuming bad faith on your part? This isn't about some random ideology. And, for the record, I did not personally attack you. I made an observation and choice not to engage you further on this particular subject out of good faith because I saw it was turning into the same back and forth it always does and that's not beneficial to anyone. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I've written elsewhere that the "season as a whole" rule doesn't really work, since otherwise we wouldn't be able to have season articles for current seasons at all. I've written above this passes WP:GNG, and it does, and it does in part because secondary sources take note of the games and transactions of the season on a continuing basis. A "year in review" is fine, but not sufficient, and could lead to weird (but unlikely) results where two season in reviews are published for a season that had no ongoing coverage. Furthermore, WP:NSEASON is NOT a WP:NOT exclusionary principle. Also, while there is bias between coverage of men and women, and a lot of coverage of women's sport has been non-reliable (blogs and the like), coverage of the women's second tier has gotten a lot better in the last five years or so to the point where this does pass WP:GNG. Arguing or accusing others of bias is not really helpful - better to be confident in the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally ok with current seasons having articles, but if a season is unlikely to have in-depth coverage of season as a whole at the conclusion of the season, I still lean towards deletion. For example, I did a search for this club's previous season for such a source and was not able to find one. I know it is a recently founded club, but I still didn't see such coverage. This can of course get muddled by non-English sources for non-speakers for leagues like Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Puerto Rico, which is technically a "top" league but is not considered fully professional, nor are there any sources in English. And while NSEASONS alone is not a justification for deletion, failing GNG IS a justification for deletion, and I just don't see a compelling reason to keep this article. Jay eyem (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That I can agree with. I can also agree that subjects like a team's relegation and any controversy surrounding it should be merged to a main article on the club unless it receives enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. The nomination here is not a "wait and see" nomination though. It is a nomination for deletion. The other article we discussed was not a nomination for merging and, though it was discussed, the ruling was a consensus to delete. Therefore the article is deleted and that information is lost, period. There are enough endorsements for the deletion to keep it deleted at the review. So merging the information is not an option as it was argued and deemed that ALL the information contained in that article, including their relegation was not worthy enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. That's why I voted for a relist and why I would agree with Spiderone that this article should be moved into draft until the season receives significant coverage or until sources can be added to prove notability of the season itself. I also believe that should be the case for ALL other current seasons as it applies. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still hope that there can be some sort of compromise with the Belles article. The coverage of the relegation in that article was an informative, comprehensive and accessible summary of the events that unfolded. The problem is that there are almost too many alternatives to deletion for any of them to gain a majority. We could feasibly have moved it into a renamed article (e.g. "Relegation of ___"), merged it to the main article, created a Belles history article and redirected it there... Spiderone 19:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely still merge the bulk of that prose into the team's article. Might be worth userfying the text and sources in case the page history gets deleted again. Jay eyem (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a legit compromise if we can get a consensus to agree to it. I would happily userfy the text and sources and hold it for anyone wanting to add it to the team page. In regards to this article I'm not sure what I think. On one hand I see the need to keep current articles, even if draftifying them, and on the other I see that there aren't enough sources to keep 95-to-99% current seasons, male or female, at all. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure User:Jay eyem why you claim the league doesn't meet GNG. There's numerous sources for the league ... and that's not even the issue here. If you are willing to mislead us on that - how do we trust your claims that this invididual season doesn't meet GNG, despite national coverage? You don't get national articles everytime the coach of the Little Piddlington Sunday Oldtimers changes. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the league itself clearly meets GNG, no question about that. But this isn't an AfD about the league season, but about the team season. I haven't a clue what that last quip is meant to be, but having in-depth coverage of the season as a whole is a pretty low bar. I understand giving some leeway to current seasons, where such a thing may not yet exist, but I couldn't find anything for their prior season either, and I have doubts that this one will meet GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see several comments above suggesting that for a season article to be notable there need to be in-depth sources covering "the season as a whole". If that's the case then I suspect the majority of season articles (men's and women's alike) aren't notable. I doubt very much, for example, that there are in-depth sources covering Rochdale's unremarkable mid-table finish in the Third Division North in 1929-30...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to post the current season article on Arsenal here as an example when just looking at current sources provided. I didn't want to be hated on by Arsenal fans though. Better than 90% of those were signings, transfers and releases. The rest were run-of-the-mill match descriptions. The most notable article might be on them firing their mascot. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You'll have to forgive my ignorance on English football, I have no idea whether or not those team seasons are considered notable. I know the US has an extensive list of historical leagues that are FPL, and even a lot of those are suspect and probably wouldn't pass GNG (That being said, WP:OSE is a poor argument), but I don't see such a parallel for other countries. For the record, I think sourcing is woefully insufficient for pretty much all team season articles, but it would be preposterous to suggest you could not find in-depth articles for a season review for something like the 2019–20 Arsenal F.C. season. Jay eyem (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One could surmise that would be the case but those sources aren't provided. Looking at the references I see much of the same. Signings, transfers, releases, routine match reports, the occasional promotional piece. A large portion of the sources came from the team website. If we are going to hold one to a standard then we should hold them all to the same standard. We aren't talking about leagues, league season or even individual team articles, only individual team season articles. We have established a consensus that the leagues are notable. Saying there must be sources out there does not equate to there being sources out there. It is equally as preposterous to assume there are sources out there, especially with how fervently some have fought to exclude articles like this one on that basis. The sheer number of sources doesn't carry much weight when one could argue that the bulk of "The current state of the citations consist of player signings, match reports, and cup draws, which doesn't constitute significant coverage." --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of in-depth coverage. Took me about a minute to find all of those. Some of the sources are better than others, but there was never going to be issues finding full season reports for Arsenal. If you feel otherwise, feel free to bring it up at AfD. And I'll just defer to WP:OSE again when comparing articles. Jay eyem (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those were good reads. I question whether they pass as SIGCOV but let's say they do. Now we are going into this gray area. Sources provided vs. sources researched. I'm a proponent for doing my own search for reliable sources regardless of whether they are in an article or not. But I have specifically seen articles refused entry and deleted because they didn't cite reliable sources even if reliable sources could be found doing a search. I have also seen a reliable source in one case suddenly become unreliable in another case. That's my issue with the subjective nature of AfC's and AfD's. The process is too subjective and because we use biased guidelines and incomplete essays as a primary guidance it will remain highly subjective. Also, don't defer to WP:OSE. Even it says not to use it as an argument against or for other editors comments. We do great arguing WP:GNG. That's where I hang my hat, precariously. :) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (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.