Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Burrows


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Jamie Burrows

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing 39 minutes of professional football for Yeovil; two totally inconsequential substitute appearances. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG from these appearances alone and he had no subsequent career in non-league as he decided to retire almost immediately after those games. There is a growing consensus that footballers that only just pass NFOOTY can and should be deleted if GNG is comprehensively failed. Spiderone 12:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  12:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when there is a complete lack of coverage, failing GNG. Alternatively redirect to List of Yeovil Town F.C. players or similar, as that is only claim to fame. GiantSnowman 12:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete if this person meets our football notability guidelines they are clearly too broad to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * At the very top of WP:NFOOTBALL, it says 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. NFOOTBALL is merely a guideline to help us decide whether something will pass WP:GNG. If someone comprehensively fails GNG, it's fair to say that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient. Burrows is an amateur footballer who just so happened to play 39 minutes of a game between two professional teams. I agree with User:GiantSnowman and User:Johnpacklambert and think that we need to use WP:COMMONSENSE in cases like this one. Spiderone  19:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * having a 'complete set' is one thing, but only if sources can sustain that - which they can't here. GiantSnowman 19:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the content is verifiable and has a purpose it can be kept. The rules contradict each other, and there are good reasons to keep and delete but nothing to be gained with deletion. At least one has to be ignored, and the policy is Ignore all rules, not Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (with the exception of WP:CORPDEPTH for organisations and WP:GNG for everything else). Peter James (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain how Burrows warrants a stand-alone article in this encyclopaedia. Please bear in mind that we are not a sports almanac. Please also explain which Wikipedia policy states that Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article Spiderone  10:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * comment Wikipedia is not footballpedia. There is no reason for us to have a "complete set" of anything that includes articles on which victually nothing is substantiated, or who get into the category by the skin of their teeth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In 100 articles from Special:Random, one was a footballer, and three were other football-related articles (two seasons and a stadium), but 31 articles were related to the United States - is that "footballpedia"? Peter James (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how anyone can sensibly deny that Wikipedia has a bias towards Anglosphere topics generally of questionable notability. These non-notable Mansfield players are a particularly egregious example.  RobinCarmody (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable in the context of a general encyclopaedia.  RobinCarmody (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, the keep argument is completely baseless, vs. at least 70 AFDs that provide precedence for such deletion. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2020 (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.