Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Thompson (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Clearly there is a consensus to keep. A differerent decision could only be justified if there was some overriding consideration warranting the exclusion or marginalisation of the keep !votes. An attempt to do so was made here, claiming that if a GNG pass could not be demonstrated, deletion was mandatory. That isn't the case. The GNG is a guideline that creates a presumption of notability. Unlike WP:V, the GNG is not a policy the failure of which results in automatic exclusion. The clear consensus here is that an article is warranted, GNG aside. As there are no policy reasons to delete (such as verifiability failures), the local consensus here must be upheld. Mkativerata (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Thompson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The previous discussion closed as a "no consensus", with the closing admin admitting that it was marginal call over whether to close in that way or to delete. Wikilawyering aside, it was was clearly established that the individual does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL in the first debate. Far more important though is the question of whether he passes the GNG. In the BBC source, Thompson's name is merely mentioned in the lineup. The second source is a primary source, and the other two are routine pieces of local journalism. It has previously been established that the likes of refs 3 and 4 do not constitute "significant coverage", meaning that Thompson quite clearly fails the GNG. This discussion goes ahead with the consent of the previous closing admin. —WFC— 06:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been the subject of a neutrally worded additional appeal for input from the WikiProject Football community. —WFC— 09:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The general consensus over the last few years has been that someone playing in a cup game between two clubs both from fully-professional leagues meets WP:ATHLETE in spirit, if not in the technicalities. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline that replaced what was WP:ATHLETE has been in place for less than a few months. More importantly though, in no way shape or form has this keep rationale explained how this subject is notable under the GNG. After all, sub-notability guidelines exist solely as a way of helping us evaluate whether or not an article is likely to pass the GNG, as clearly stated at the very top of WP:NSPORTS. —WFC— 10:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant how long the renamed guideline has been around, given that it has pretty much exactly the same wording as the previous one (i.e. playing in a fully professional league). The old guideline did not mention cup matches, but past discussions have always put cup matches between two clubs from fully professional leagues on a par with league games. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  11:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I accept that the length is irrelevant. Although the wording is of some significance: given that the standard is treated as an inherent guarantee of notability by football editors, it needs to be robust. But I see this as a relatively unimportant issue. If he passed the GNG, you would not need to continue along this line. At no stage have you attempted to address the question of the subject's general notability. —WFC— 11:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because if he passes WP:ATHLETE (which he does by past general consensus about cup matches between professional clubs), WP:GNG is irrelevant. It's only in cases when someone fails WP:ATHLETE can WP:GNG "save" an article from deletion. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  11:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So to clarify, a footballer does not need to pass the GNG provided that he passes WP:ATHLETE? —WFC— 12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to be pedantic about it, the actual wording of WP:ATHLETE is contradictory, claiming that "this guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline", but then that "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", so make your own mind up. As I said, in the past, footballers who have played in cup matches between clubs in fully professional leagues are deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My mind is made up. I was merely trying to give you an opportunity to clarify whether you think the GNG is relevant, which you declined to do. I didn't want to be accused of misrepresenting you by stating later on that "editors such as Number 57 did not establish that this person passed the GNG, and instead argued that the GNG was irrelevant", without at least giving you a fair chance to qualify what you have said. I now feel that I have done that, and respect your opinion. —WFC— 13:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He has got a couple of u-21 caps and is probably going to get a appearance for Watford soon. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability (unless there is enough coverage to suggest that the individual passes the GNG). Secondly, I'd question exactly how likely he is to play. Thirdly, we don't go on what we think will happen when evaluating whether an article should be kept. Regards, —WFC— 15:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems peopel want to keep based on notability that could come later. While he may have potential, we operate under the guise of notability needing to already be established. Create the article later if he becomes what everyone hopes. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  15:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Number57, playing in a League Cup game between fully professional teams is enough to pass WP:ATHLETE (or whatever the current guideline is called). Standard historical practice by WP:FOOTY has been to say that player has to pass either WP:ATH or WP:GNG to warrant keeping the article; both is prefereable, but not essential. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - one appearance in the league cup is not enough to reasonably assume that the person will meet the GNG. Looking at the references provided in the article, they are pretty routine coverage. Then again, this article doesn't hurt the project and all of the information is verifiable. However, it's probably best to re-create this later when the player has accomplished more and is the subject of more coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I searched a bit for significant coverage in reliable sources not already included in the article and only found one article from the Evening Standard which is possibly more than routine coverage. I'm still thinking the article doesn't quite satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm still on the fence on this one. However, I do have one question. Why is playing a match in one national competition more noteworthy than playing the same match in another? While I'm well aware that Watford F.C. and Notts County F.C. do not play in the same league, but if Mr. Thompson had appeared in a league fixture between the two, even in the lower of the two leagues in which they currently play, there would be no question whatsoever of him meeting WP:ATHLETE. Just some food for thought. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It should also be remembered that you always have to meet WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE/WP:NSPORTS are just guidelines as to when sources are likely to exist and are not a guarantee of notability. If you can find sources to source this bio then what either of those guidelines say is moot. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The current consensus of an appearance in the Football League, Football League Cup, or Football League Trophy conferring notability works perfectly well. I don't see what is with the current obsession of purging out the several players each season that make only the one appearance and then drop off the face of the Earth. Even those that only make one professional appearance often end up with a non-league career that can easily be documented and updated, especially currently active players. There are seven separate sources used in the article, and the player is even notable enough to have his signature traded on eBay for Christ's sake. 95% of footballers on Wikipedia can be only be found in obscure books and yet nobody is suggesting they get mass-deleted. The player meets more than meets notability guidelines, there is no reason why this should have even been nominated in the first place save to confirm the current long-standing consensus.--EchetusXe 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Happening to have been born after the fall of the Berlin wall doesn't make an individual more notable that someone who happens to have been born before the city originally got out of hand, particularly if they are notable for precisely the same thing. And heck, I could put my signiture onto eBay for 70p without selling it. Should I have an article? —WFC— 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but similarly, just because a young player happens to have started his career at Watford doesn't mean he should be denied an article despite passing notability guidelines. This precedent of notability being established by a professional appearance has been around for years and has worked perfectly without any complaints from anyone. I notice that you yourself were perfectly content to follow these clearly established principles, yet one morning earlier this year you woke up and decided that the precedent set on this project MUST be changed, regardless of how much time must be wasted on these "discussions", or how many people disagree with you ("this article is going to be deleted" despite a 7:2 ratio of keep to delete votes). Please give me a reason why you find the precedent so offensive all of a sudden, and please tell me why the **** we should look over the 30,000 or so footballer articles to make sure there is x amount of coverage for each of them?--EchetusXe 13:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is going to be deleted, because every single keep argument is null and void. All BLPs must pass the general notability guideline, and 0% of keep arguments have attempted to explain why this person is notable. Calling the process a vote serves to highlight your total ignorance of sitewide process. And if you feel the need to swear at me, at least have the courtesy/courage to actually do so. —WFC— 07:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seem that appearing in the League Cup counts as passing WP:NSPORTS. The coverage is reasonable enough to write an acceptable article and it all looks fairly uncontentious, so there's no WP:V or WP:BLP concerns either. We kept Ross Worner as passing WP:NSPORTS on the basis of one League Cup appearance with little protest, so I don't think we should delete this unless something's changed in the last month. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article meets the NSPORT guideline as the player has competed in a fully-professional cup competition. The article has numerous references from reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not a single instance of significant coverage from reliable sources, his employer aside. —WFC— 07:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a single person has established that this individual meets the GNG. If that does not change, this article is going to be deleted, as meeting the GNG is a requirement of NSPORTS. —WFC— 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to add my thoughts but it sounds like you are going to delete this anyway regardless of comments?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision whether or not to delete cannot be made by the proposer, but by an independent admin.  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I'll add my views then...Regardless of which piece of Wiki law trumps another I am a great believer in precedent, simplicity and comparisions of like articles. One minute in the Football League (e.g Jerome Federico, Charlie Stimson (English Footballer)) - notable. Similar playing time in the League or FA Cup - not notable. There are many like this that have no more references than for Adam Thompson and yet their articles remain. Therefore I cannot see the logic in deleting this.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I am concerned by User:WFCforLife adding additional criteria to the WP:ATHLETE guideline during the course of this discussion to make it fit with his views. Bad form. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that isn't adding additional requirements. Those requirements already exist and say so at the top of the page, he rewrote them in the football section, because football editors have been notoriously bad for ignoring the fact, that WP:ATHLETE does not overrule WP:GNG. Articles still need to meet WP:GNG even if they meet WP:ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:ATHLETE asks for an appearance in a fully-pro league. This person has appeared in a fully-pro competition. Deleting purely over semantics is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 13:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly that's a relatively small distinction, (although as explained in the previous AfD, I believe there is a difference between a league game and a cup game). That said, the general notability guideline is certainly more than a semantic point. —WFC— 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, has played in a fully-professional cup competition, therefore satisfying WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly explain how he meets the general notability guideline? Regards, —WFC— 13:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Meets WP:NFOOTY thus being notable as a sports person. --Jimbo[online] 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're not going to explain how he meets the GNG? —WFC— 13:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He passes ATHLETE which is sufficient enough. Neither WP:GNG or WP:ATH state that one supersedes the other. --Jimbo[online] 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:ATHLETE does indicate that you still have to meet WP:GNG, right at the top of the page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where exactly? To me, the sentence "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." says that if someone/thing meets the criteria on this page, it automatically meets the GNG. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When athlete was rewritten earlier this year they went to great pains to make sure that point was very clear. That GNG still overruled athlete. Here is where it says it Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. and also under the Applicable Guidelines and Policies section it says All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. (emphasis mine). It goes on to say This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline This is where the sentence you quote comes in. It is trying to say that the guideline is a guideline for when sources are likely to exist for a person such that they probably meet GNG but not necessarily, in other words this guideline is just a rule of thumb to make it easy to see at a quick glance if a subject is likely to meet GNG, but not a guarantee that they do. Unfortunately the football bar for some reason was placed alot lower than all the other sports, every other major sport requires to you play at the highest level of the sport professionally. I think this is where people are getting caught up, because a single game at a low level of pro probably isn't enough to get the sources that this guideline indicates they probably have. -DJSasso (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So if everything is subservient to WP:GNG, why do we have the specific notability guidelines? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they help people at a glance see if someone is likely to be notable but the sources are hard to find. An example would be someone who played say in 1890 on a top flight team. No internet then so sources would be hard to find but if someone were to go looking through old newspaper archives they would likely find sources. It basically protects articles where its hard to get at sources immediately but the sources surely exist. To prevent things like recentism. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The term 'lowest level of pro' is vague. For English football for pro-players in pro-teams is playing in the FA Cup or League Cup somehow a lower level of pro football than playing in the football league? If a definitive statement could be arrived at we could save anymore discussion on cases where players make only appearances in a cup games--Egghead06 (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.