Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Doe (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. Yep look at the link given at the end of the discussion - thus passing WP:ATHLETE because of that JForget 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Doe

edit
AfDs for this article:
Scott Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 30. Originally nominated for deletion by User:Vintagekits, who stated : Original reason for PROD removed. The footballer has never played in a fully-professional match. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the sources provided from the Dorset Echo are purely trivial. I barely consider the 3rd level of English football notable - this guy played in the 6th! Hiding T 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Hiding T 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, for the record the Times article barely even mentions Doe once! The Times actually discusses Theo Walcott how apparently played in with Doe when they where kids (even though the source doesnt mention it) yet Jimbo seems to think that it warrants a full paragraph in the article - its just padding and an attempt to get a half decent source into the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • well the admin involved in making it a GA a. doesnt seem to have considered the notability factor and b. doesnt think that the two are link.
  • Keep - Easily passes WP:BIO as he has had significant coverage by reliable sources. While this person might not pass WP:BIO's "Additional criteria" of WP:ATHLETE, the heading of "Additional criteria" states: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." (Boldface not mine but is in original WP:BIO text.) I'm still waiting for the former teacher Barack Obama AfD with the stipulation "Fails WP:TEACHER." It's going to happen. You know it. --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, maybe because Barack Obama is notability outside of being a teacher - are you trying to argue that Scott Doe has some sort of notability outside of being a local footballer. The sources provided within the article being debated here are available from probably every single local footballer down as fair as the 10th level of football, infact my own name appears enough in my local paper to provide enough info for an article - however, this is just routine sports reporting which does not pass W:N. Now that we have had most of the "FOOTY Project cabal" !vote on this we can actually get some outside objective critique on the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper. If thousands of footballers have received significant coverage from reliable sources, then they pass WP:NOTABILITY. If you've received as much coverage as this person has, then I'd argue that your article should be kept if it was up for AfD. There's no "If the person is an athlete, then they must pass WP:ATHLETE" clause anywhere in WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. As a matter of fact it states the opposite. I'm not part of a "FOOTY" cabal, thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am also not from said cabal, so I suggest you take your bad faith accusations elsewhere! Jeni (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said either of you were part of the "cabal" - however, the logic behind your keep !vote shows exactly what you are. sweet dreams.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, you cannot say that just because someone !votes against you in a discussion, that they are then part of a cabal; especially as said cabal doesn't actually exist! GiantSnowman 08:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I feckin wrote - I never said that they were in the cabal.
If you dont think that there is a biased cabal at work here then I would draw you attention the AfD of Vid Belec - a player who played for Slovakia in an underage international tournament and from Inter Milan in an international pre season tournament - there were multiple references from much better sources then passing mentions in the Dorset Express (quick Google search will show that) - however, the same editors that are !voting to delete purely on the basis of WP:ATH are the same ones that are voting here to ignore WP:ATH - I'll let you make your mind up why. I can provide a a mountain of other such hypocritical examples where they are "gaming the system".
GiantSnowman, would you like a few examples of your hypocricy to be delivered here?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "the logic behind your keep !vote shows exactly what you are" would indicate that you believe them to be part of this "biased cabal". If you are unhappy with the result of a deletion discussion, then take it to WP:DRV; this is not the place to do it. GiantSnowman 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well your assumption of "my indication" is wrong, as case of reading what you want to read as opposed to what is actually there.
Also I've taken the AfD of two footballers to DRV recently and they were both overturned - despite the yelps and cries of those very people I describe as "the cabal" who are using wikipedia to further their own POV. I include you in that and like I said can provide evidence of your hyprocricy at the drop of a hat. Out and out bullies is what they are and they have been shown up as such.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your (absolutely nnegative) opinion of me, I resent being accused of being a member of a cabal, and I certainly resent being accused of being a bully, so please cease. GiantSnowman 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will cease when I the "piss take" that is the "FOOTY Project cabal" ceases to use wikipedia as their own "football". Like I said do you want example of your (and their) hypocricy to be shown here? Biased, gamers, bullies and liars.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really haven't learnt from your block have you? GiantSnowman 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one which saw you blocked for 72 hours, and had two requests for unblocking declined due to uncivil behaviour. GiantSnowman 09:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one where a biased member of the FOOTY Project cabal abused his admin powers and then the block was overturned at ANI and the cabal member then came and apologised on my talk page? That one? Sorry, I thought it was one of the 26 others!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The athletics criterion is a sensible one, and serves nicely for eliminating very local heros. I think it was intended to overrule to GNG--except when the GNG applies to some other aspect of notability for the same person. There is no reason why we can not do it--at Wikipedia we make the rules. There can be many relationships between the general and special guidelines. In this case, to judge an athlete by his accomplishment by his athletes rather than if a town paper happens to be available is a very sensible way to proceed. We should do this more often. I've always been a deletionist on local figures until we can develop a multi layer structure, and call only the top one Wikipedia. Nothing the Dorset Echo and the Ilford Recorder say about a player can make him notable as a player. (Thus the Obama analogy fails--no number of articles about him as teacher (and there are a few, driven by the interest in him as a politician) will make him notable as a professor--his notability is otherwise.) DGG (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I already stated, WP:N alone (which is a guideline itself) is not enough to establish notability for simple athletes, especially minor league footballers. In cases like these, WP:ATHLETE must be also met. Also, please note that news coverage (which may be pretty extensive on football in Europe, even in minor leagues) does not automatically give notability to a subject. I am however also supportive of freezing this AfD until August 8, so that we can realize if the subject can actually meet WP:ATHLETE for that date and, in that case, I would be happy to change my !vote. --Angelo (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this person passes the WP:GNG, a fact that rather seriously undermines all these people who're saying that he isn't notable. See my remark at the earlier DRV, where I cited significant coverage in reliable sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As noted elsewhere, he's signed for a club the 4th level in England. I'd keep until it's established whether he's going to play at that level or not. Alternatively, delete, but keep the history so the article can be reestablished easily if he becomes notable at a later stage. I've made similar arguments for League of Ireland players in similar positions. Jhealy (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has never played at even a reasonable level of soccer in England. Trivial press mentions used as sources and as to the good article debate it is not a reason to keep if it fails deletion criteria and says more about the reviewer. BigDunc 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What deletion criteria is it supposed to fail? The only ground that I find intelligible in terms of policies or guidelines is the notability argument, and that simply doesn't hold water. The GNG is an objective test: non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source. There are two articles on the BBC that discuss him. So unless it's contended that the BBC is not a reliable source, he passes the GNG.

    WP:ATHLETE does not supersede the GNG. WP:ATHLETE is the opinion of one Wikiproject, but WP:N is a global consensus of significant age and strength.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's perfectly true. Nevertheless, reliable sources are reliable sources and the GNG doesn't distinguish between national and local news coverage. I can cite a reference to a local newspaper or local TV channel and that presents no particular problem.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point being that the reporting of this player is routine run'o'da'mill sports reporting that is in my opinion pretty trivial. Maybe I am out of step and forgive me for being slightly old fashioned but I consider a player notable when he has actually dont something notable. No matter how much wikilaywering goes on, in my opinion playing in the fifth level of football isnt, nor is someone who has just played one minute as a subsitute in any league outside the Premier Division or someone that he just playing is in the lowly reguarded FL Trophy. However, there seems to be a concensus amongest "the Cabal" (yes I know its getting boring now) that it is OK to focus on one technicality for one player but at the same time ignoring techinicalities - e.g. John Doe (no relation to Scott) plays two minutes for Jockstrap United against Rochdale so technically passes WP:ATH, but one of the Jockstrap players is a part time plasterer so therefore technically the team and therefore the league is technically not "fully professional" and therefore the player fails WP:ATH. Herein lies the bias and screwed sense of notability the sits in the mindset of "the Cabal" - and until such time comes as there is a fair and level playing field then it isnt going to be a smooth ride.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your rationale for your !vote - I disagree that it is non-trivial coverage for the reasons outlined, but I undertstand it. My argument is that the as well as the coverage being trivial they guy just isnt notable - yet anyway! I understand your point about his mentions about him in the BBC - but if the BBC (and other reliable sources) report that a man falls off his bike and into a manwhole - is he also notable because he will pass GNG?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's on the roster for a club which we have a page for. "He signed for Dagenham on a permanent basis on a two-and-a-half-year contract in March." Using an existing page as an argument for another is relevant when notability is an issue and one is a participant in the subject of the existing article. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, possibly the weakest arguement I ever heard on any AfD let alone this one. So because there is an article about Ware F.C. does that mean that everyone in the squad. Actually if this is kept they probably are because there are the same sources available. Let Pandora's Box open!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Vintagekits, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It's particularly so on Wikipedia, where the argument from setting a precedent fails because Wikipedia specifically disavows precedent as a reason for making a decision (hence WP:OCE). Try a more constructive and less sarcastic line of argument.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue against that point if I understood a word you said! You have ta dumb doun wen yer taulkin ta me son!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dagenham at the "fully professional" level or not? I don't see a "fully professional" label in the infobox, so I don't know whether that club qualifies. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dagenham & Redbridge play in Football League Two, which is widely considered to be fully professional. There has been the odd player in recent seasons who has played in the league while holding down another job, but these examples (eg Dave Rainford) have been reported by the media due to their exceptional status. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So therefore not fully professional! There are plenty of examples of part time players as outlined in other AfD's - and even this season there will be part timers - and thats assuming that this player gets a get! --Vintagekits (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but likely to be a moot point after the new season starts. I class the BBC coverage on the same basis as that from the Dorset Echo - essentially local that does not show notability in a wider sense. Just because a source has 'BBC' to it does not mean that it is national coverage. Yes, it can be accessed nationally, but the interest is only local. Much the same as the Dorset Echo can be accessed nationally but is unlikely to be of interest to those outside the area. I know that the GNG do not make mention of the 'localness' or otherwise of sources, but I believe that it is vital to take that into account, particularly when regarding BLPs. Quantpole (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO by virtue of passing WP:N. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines (per article as it exists) and thus meets our notability guidelines. WP:BIO specifically says: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." This is as clear cut as it gets folks. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Scott Doe has made his debut for Dagenahm & Redbridge in League Two, against Crewe Alexandra, passing WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 14:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the issue of minor player notability is going to be wikilawyered to death over the wording of WP:ATHLETE, then his start today magically made him notable. Daft I know, but them's the rules. closing admin take note of the new situation. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Doe_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1142609661"