Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988–89 Real Madrid CF 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 speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1988–89 Real Madrid CF season

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.
HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Silly nomination as this article covers an exceptional season (the club won a domestic treble!) that is certainly the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I added this recent coverage (not in-depth) that was the first Google search result in Spanish. Once I have some time, I'll go through the digital archives to flesh it out. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more coverage: [1], [2] and [3]. Jogurney (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Jogurney. Plenty of coverage in news sources of this season. Treble-winning season for arguably the most successful club in the world's most popular sport. Article needs improving but deletion is not necessary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seasons for one of the most prominent and successful sports teams in the history of the world are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Ravenswing 23:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2022 (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.