Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Parkinson (footballer born 1945)


 * 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   delete. Consensus seems to be that even if he meets the subject-specific notability guideline in a technical sense, Parkinson doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Alan Parkinson (footballer born 1945)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced stub that Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. For the sake of factual accuracy, the article is sourced (albeit only one source) and passes WP:NFOOTY as the subject made one appearance in the Football League. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the reference I thought it was just a note.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - his sole FL appearance was as an amateur, confirmed by this. do you have the Hugman book? What information is there about him? If this is it then I might be inclined to say he is non-notable... GiantSnowman 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL by virtue of his Football League appearance, though it'd do no harm for the article to state explicitly in the prose that he played in that league. Article needs improving, not deleting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep surely Leyton Orient was fully professional in 1967. Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Technical WP:NFOOTY pass at best, but WP:GNG always overrides this. Unclear how an article on a player who made one potentially FPL appearance could be expanded to meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – GNG trumps NFOOTBALL, GNG doesn't guarantee articles should be kept. There seems to be nothing to add to the article, which lacks enough gravitas to have an article. C679 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 12:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The relationship between the GNG and the sport specific guides has never been certain. l I think it's logical to see them as alternatives, if for no other reason that it greatly reduces the need for detailed analysis of the great number of articles. I agree the result can seem absurd to someone like me not particularly interested in the sport, but that's irrelevant--its still better not to need the discussions. I fail to see why gravitas is a requirement for a WP article.  &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:GNG, even though perhaps barely satisfying WP:NFOOTY. No inherent notability for kicking a ball in 1 professional game. Edison (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Having merely shown up at a professional level is no longer enough. Consensus has changed. Subject must have been covered substantially or have achieved some significant accomplishment to merit inclusion. No objection to redirecting to an article on the team he made the roster on or some type of list article if one exists. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - While technically passing WP:NSPORT, the article fails WP:GNG clearly enough for it fall under the part of WP:NSPORT that says that not all article that pass its must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2014 (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.