Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Horncastle (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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

James Horncastle
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hello. The previous AfD in January 2017 concluded with a unanymous delete !vote. In this new version of the article created last month, we have 12 footnotes but no source about the subject whatsoever. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, plus current status and WP:BEFORE verification. Also, Salt, on account of unwarranted and without justification recreation. -The Gnome (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Arguably the foremost Italian football expert working in the English speaking media. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 09.09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I am more than happy to say he passes WP:GNG and clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR having multiple published news articles on the internet. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment : This is all well and good, coming from fellow football fans, but where are the sources? Individual opinion and sentiments do not count for much in terms of Wikipedia content. How can we verify, for example, that the article's subject is "the foremost Italian football expert working in the English speaking media"? That's a rather big claim; got any source stating this? And how exactly does subject "pass WP:NAUTHOR"? There are myriads of persons who have had "multiple published news articles on the internet." None of them has a Wikipedia biography.
 * WP:NAUTHOR demands that "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", which again means we need sources. It also demands that the person "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique," which subject evidently has not. Or, that he "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Same conclusion.That's what WP:NAUTHOR is about; not just publishing text. We may all enjoy the person's work but Wikipedia is all about verifiability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Firstly, did you read the article or look through the citations? It's not a great article and needs a hell of a cleanup. But with respect, I don't think you have looked hard at the article otherwise you would of noticed The Guardian citation, a published newspaper he writes for, with multiple listed podcast works through that citation. He writes for different news sources, they are published both online and in newspapers like this one written for the Independent, 1, He has written a hell of a lot, he has been on TV a fair bit also, what on earth are you trying to verify? Besides you can even download a kindle book he helped write, 2, The important thing here, does he satisfy GNG, by hell he does! Govvy (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We have articles from the person; not about the person. The notability criteria for a journalist are found in WP:JOURNALIST, criteria which oursubject evidently does not meet. As to the presumption of notability provided by WP:GNG, that does not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia. The text of the guideline is explicit: Significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So, why exactly should there be a Wikipedia article about this particular journalist? -The Gnome (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - probably just about scrapes through. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources and coverage are more than sufficient to establish GNG. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2018 (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.