Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Weiler (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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dale Weiler
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject fails to meet notability guidelines. While the subject appears to meet sport specific criteria, Notability_(sports) FAQ#2 states that the subject must still meet the general notability guidelines. The subject lacks "significant coverage". The article was created 6+ years ago and only has one reference, to a broken link, from the subject's University Athletics program and not his former professional team. Searching on Google fails to reveal significant coverage of the subject. Many sources briefly mention the subject, identifying participation in a game or the time at which a goal was scored. But articles with depth on the subject were not found. Additionally, many of those sources lack reliability or independence from the subject. Becky Sayles (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica1000 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. This is not a player who played 10 mins, this is someone who spent three seasons as a professional making over 30 appearances. Needs improving to meet WP:GNG, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Question Have you found any sources? Notability requires verifiable evidence. All the search results here(newspapers) are routine coverage or unrelated.  The results ten pages into Google yields only one result that resembles a reliable source that actually covers the subject. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - sources added, there are more out there, and a bunch on HighBeam which I can't access... GiantSnowman 18:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - He hast played in a Fully professional league on many occasions therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:NFOOTY, has played repeatedly in a fully professional league. Article needs expanding not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Having played in the USL First Division, this player meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies notability requirements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Four of the above keep !votes only address WP:NFOOTY, which by itself is insufficient.  WP:NSPORTS states that WP:GNG must still be met. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NSPORTS opens by saying "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (my emphasis), which is the case here. What is the problem? GiantSnowman 09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To support GS's point, please see The Deletion Archive for a very long list of players kept or deleted on the basis of NFOOTY to support the notion that there is a long standing consensus that a significant career in a fully professional league is sufficient for the subject to be considered generally notable. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the The Deletion Archive, among the AfDs that resulted in keep since September, it is not clear that NFOOTY alone is sufficient is the consensus. Jules Boykoff doesn't discuss NFOOTY.  List of Persib Bandung is about a redirect and not notability.  Kingsley Chigozie, Dimitrios Stefanakos, Fran O'Leary, and James Kiffe met both GNG and NFOOTY. Victor Ortiz  GNG sources were found.  Kenneth Dougall and Srdan Grahovac didn't discuss GNG sources.  Only in Spencer Thompson is NFOOTY addressed as the appropriate standard.  Becky Sayles (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - did you actually read the AFDs you have quoted directly above? Kingsley Chigozie doesn't mention GNG as a reason for keeping; Dimitrios Stefanakos also doesn't mention GNG as a reason for keeping; and James Kiffe has a majority of 'keep' !votes exclusively mentioning NFOOTBALL, with a handful mentioning both... GiantSnowman 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * - As stated above, Kingsley Chigozie, Dimitrios Stefanakos, and James Kiffe met both GNG and NFOOTY, making them not relevant to the consensus issue addressed by Fenix down. The implication would require application of NFOOTY when GNG is not met, rather than when it is not mentioned.  A !vote with one reason for support does not necessarily mean an absence of other reasons.    Becky Sayles (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Further info - there is plenty of consensus at AFD where players who made only 1 appearance have been deleted (which I have supported!) - but that does not apply here, Weiler had a short-but-decent professional career. GiantSnowman 12:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NSPORTS says more than that: "'This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). 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. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such asWikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.(my emphasis)"  Meeting NFOOTY means it is likely to meet the general notability guidelines, not that it does meet them.Becky Sayles (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * New Comment Two issues are dispositive in this Afd.  One is the consensus, if it exists, about the sufficiency of NFOOTY alone vs GNG.  The other, dependent on the first, is whether or not GNG is met here.  The assumption made that NFOOTY alone is sufficient is incorrect because of the language of the guidelines as described above.  It is also incorrect because Policy on Consensus states "'Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages.)  Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.'"  While my own brief look into the archive does not support the described local consensus, I assume that GiantSnowman's comments in Spencer Thompson are an accurate reflection of his experience.  Unfortunately, here a subset of editors participating in football AfDs are asking to apply local consensus over the broader consensus established in applicable guidelines and policy.
 * If policy is correctly applied, then GNG must be met. At the time of nomination, the article had only one reference  which is a routine athlete profile from a school athletics website that supports content in the article, but not notability of the subject.  Four additional references have been added, but they too are limited.   and  are more routine profiles, only indicating team membership, and participation in games, with no depth of coverage.   and  are from the same source behind a paywall. Becky Sayles (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)