Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Campbell (footballer)


 * 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 no consensus. Numerically, the "keep" opinions are clearly in the majority, but consensus is determined also by strength of argument, based on applicable policies and guidelines.

In this respect, there are two types of argument on the "keep" side: (a) the footballer has played many international matches (I assume that is what is meant by "caps"), and (b) there is substantial coverage about him in reliable sources. The "delete" side argues that (a) is irrelevant with respect to inclusion, and that (b) is not the case.

With respect to (a), the "delete" side has clearly the stronger case: lengthy community discussions have determined, and codified in inclusion guidelines, that playing matches is an indicator of notability, but not proof of it. I must therefore discount all opinions that make only argument (a).

With respect to (b), I cannot determine consensus, because people disagree (as one may in good faith) about whether what sources we have meet the requirements of WP:GNG. I don't think that I can or should decide this disagreement by "supervote".

As a result, we do not have consensus among those contributors who make arguments based on our community-agreed rules, and accordingly the article is kept by default. A new AfD, preferably one focused only on analyzing the existing sources, remains possible.

This closure overturns a previous non-administrator closure, see Deletion review/Log/2022 April 24.  Sandstein  16:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Jeff Campbell (footballer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of notability; just database entries Ficaia (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep another AfD by the same user with no WP:BEFORE work being done. Has played in 16 matches for the NZ team, coverage here and here for starters.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He still has to pass WP:GNG regardless of how many national team games he has played in. The stuff.co.nz article is a fairly routine transfer piece that does not count as a WP:SIGCOV. I have no idea how reliable The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website is but if it is then that article could count go towards GNG. But more is needed, at least couple of additional significant sources. I did a little search but couldn't really find anything substantial. Alvaldi (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ultimate NZ Soccer is a self published source; I have not been able to identify the author, as their are images of him but no name, suggesting that WP:SME is not met. I've also removed the source from the article, because even if he is a SME, we cannot use self published sources on a BLP. BilledMammal (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ultimate NZ Soccer is the ultimate source for NZ Football and is on the list for WP:FOOTY as the most reliable souce. It is looked after by Jeremy Ruane who is the go to person for NZ football, even by New Zealand Football itself. Published in books by NZF as well as on RSSSF.— NZFC  (talk) (cont)  02:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from that list. Even if he is a SME, and I think we need further discussion on whether he meets that criteria as I don't believe the situation is as clear as you appear to, his website primarily covers BLP's and since as a SPS it cannot be used on BLP's we should not be encouraging its use. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lugnuts. This is yet another bad nomination by the same person in less than 48 hours. Again, no BEFORE performed and again, not reading the article properly as it must be obvious that someone with 16 full international caps is "notable". WP:COMMONSENSE is needed. The article itself does, I agree, need to be improved but it is perfectly acceptable as a WP:STUB as is, and this nomination should be withdrawn in the same way as the OP has had to do with both Articles for deletion/Bradman Ediriweera and Articles for deletion/Mátyás Balogh.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source Lugnuts cites above is promising, as it actually provides commentary on his games. But the information doesn't seem verifiable. I don't think one source of dubious reliability is good enough. Ficaia (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject lacks enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS makes it very clear that all athletes must pass GNG and there is no automatic notability for playing for a national team. If other editors have better luck in finding significant coverage I am more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources online, played international football. I agree this is a bad nomination. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Govvy Could you kindly post some of those online sources here that show that he passes GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * reply Being selected to play for your national team will pass GNG on multiple sources, look the BBC noted him. So get off your high horse and you can perform WP:BEFORE also instead of posting silly asks like above. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Govvy I did search for sources and did not find enough significant coverage for him to pass the general notability guideline, something that all athletes must pass. And despite lots of assertions of notability and claims of a bad nomination and that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, nobody here has been able to establish any evidence that the subject has enough significant coverage to pass GNG (the BBC bit is a brief mention of him and does not go towards GNG). So it is not a silly question to ask editors to back upp their claims. Alvaldi (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: While not all-encompassing by any means, the New Zealand Herald, a generally reliable source per WP:RSPSS, alone has 250+ results for "Jeff Campbell" on their website, search here. These include overwhelmingly soccer-related articles so we know they're regarding the subject in question. Additionally, a quick and basic Google search also finds various other sources such as this, this, this, this, etc. GauchoDude (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of those articles would you say are the three best? I clicked two of your links; the second one has the most passing of passing mentions, and the third doesn't even have prose concerning Cambell (he's just included in a list of players on the team).  No number (not even 250+) of examples like that would not pass GNG. JBL (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: as per above the title is passing notable criteria for a sports person who played in International. Jeni Wolf (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Surprising nomination of an All White who meets GNG.  Schwede 66  17:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - another poor nomination; international player with significant coverage, meets GNG, is notable. GiantSnowman 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, what? A player with 16 international caps being AfD'd? If the other nominations are this bad, then perhaps an AfD topic ban is warranted. Number   5  7  10:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of the sources provided are just passing mentions in articles about games that he played in, even among the several hundred Google results that someone linked. The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website might give us one good source, but that's still not enough to meet GNG. I would remind folks that there is no presumed notability for football players, even at the international level. –dlthewave ☎ 15:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG as sufficient WP:SIGCOV is not available. I note this statement: A player with 16 international caps being AfD'd? If the other nominations are this bad, then perhaps an AfD topic ban is warranted. The first sentence is flawed, given the consensus to remove WP:NFOOTY, and the second sentence is inappropriate for this location - it should be discussed on the users talk page or at ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - with 16 international caps, this nomination is absurd, failing WP:BEFORE and completely ignores long-standing consensus. A quick Google search yields GNG coverage such as this. Article needs improving, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is one example of significant coverage from a reliable source, but given that we require multiple to keep the article, and that eleven editors before you !voted without finding it, it isn't accurate to say that WP:BEFORE was failed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I stopped looking after the first - which took seconds. Common sense says that anyone with 16 caps (and 5 goals) for the All Whites is going to be notable. If before fails to find this, then it's pretty clear that the BEFORE was not done properly and that the person doing the nomination has little familiarity about the sport, and shouldn't be editing in this area. It's not like I had to hunt for long - I simply tossed Jeff Campbell "All Whites" into a search engine - and out the hits start coming - despite the very common name. As for multiple sources being required, User:BilledMammal - there's no rule about that - merely a guideline. Are you really suggesting that there won't be a second source? What about the ones that were added to the article after your comment (I haven't looked at them to be honest, or Googled any further since I found the first article in seconds). Nfitz (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet the eleven editors before you didn't find it. If they couldn't, it's not unreasonable that the nominator did not. As for the other sources, see the source assessment table below.
 * And while guidelines like WP:GNG are not policy, they are rules that we should follow outside of rare exceptions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't for a second imagine that 11 editors actually bothered wasting their time looking after such a monumentally poor nomination. If you actually think they all did, I'm concerned about your competence to edit here.
 * Guidelines are literally not rules; by definition they provide guidance. If Guidelines were rules, then the Crown would have successfully prosecuted those responsible for the Walkerton Tragedy for what they actually did, rather than for peripheral reasons. In this analogue, we must follow policies, not guidelines. Were there guidelines about football players (there aren't I note) they'd quickly tell us that those with a dozen international caps in a nation with significant reporting about national team activities, would be notable, and that people shouldn't be wasting time with such poor nominations! Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you call them, we follow both policies and guidelines unless there is a strong reason not to - in this case, as there is no overriding policy, and no reason to apply WP:IAR, we follow them.
 * And if editors are voting to keep without any reason other than an assumption that such players are notable - an assumption that was recently rejected in an RFC - then that is a larger issue than whether an editor properly followed WP:BEFORE. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have to apply IAR for this nomination. GNG is met. My point is that we all know that an All Whites player with a dozen caps is going to end up meeting GNG if we dig long enough. All this process does is wastes everyone's precious time - time that could be better spent improving the project. Nfitz (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Though to be honest now I've looked, I don't find any of User:NealeWellington's new references particularly compelling after a quick browse. A simple mention in The Age might confirm a fact, but it doesn't count much to notability - or else anyone run over by a streetcar in Melbourne would have an article. What we need are articles about Campbell in particular. This one isn't the greatest, but it jumped out at me in Google without digging too deep. Nfitz (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That source is better than all except the NZ Herald source, but I don't think it amounts to significant coverage by itself - although if we can find a few of that length, combined with the NZ Herald source, would be enough to switch my !vote to keep.
 * I've looked into the search you mentioned, but unfortunately couldn't find any additional significant coverage - most are passing mentions, or references to people with a similar name. I did a similar search working through the rest of the teams he played for, but the result was the same. BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and think it does count for significant coverage. There's certainly other similar shorter articles primarily about him over the decades, such as, which I'll add to the article. Nfitz (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note enough talk - needs editing. Have started adding his international career - more than enough for notability. Might not complete tonight as many sources are not on line. NealeWellington (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated added references to two national newspaper articles, and two international ones - although I don't know if The Age Melbourne counts - might just be a small local rag. NealeWellington (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep international All White with 16 caps that is clearly sourced.— NZFC  (talk) (cont)  02:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled what issue remains, if you agree that the NZ Herald article meets GNG. If you recall WP:SPORTCRIT was revised so that biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. As SPORTCRIT is met, then NSPORTS is met. What's the issue? Nfitz (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You forgot to include the second sentence of that point, which states Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Given the existence of that source, it is worth looking for more, but as a single source does not indicate notability we must delete this article if we cannot find them. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Amazing how someone who wants to delete all sports articles managed to write a table to claim that a sportsperson isn't notable... Listed things at not reliable sources because they're offline/you don't know thinks about them is bullshit. Which is what this source evaluation is- an attempt to propaganda people into delete votes. It does not accurately depict the sources at all, and should be ignored by the closing admin as pointy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nfitz found an online version of the offline source; it says while budding international Jeff Campbell pipped professional apprentices Chris Killen (Manchester City) and Allan Pearce (Barnsley) to take the young player award. It is not significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note Don't just use All Whites but New Zealand Football and Soccer (was known as soccer back in the day). Found these sources that I'd try add later but I'm on mobile. Stuff, NZ Herald and this possible offline source with the National Library. — NZFC  (talk) (cont)  05:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Stuff source is the one that Nfitz and I were discussing above, and the New Zealand Herald source is primarily focused on his father, not on him. Further, it is the same organization as the one significant source that we have, but WP:GNG requires that the significant coverage come from multiple organizations. The offline source could have something; is anyone able to access it? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree about your conclusion that the Stuff source isn't significant coverage; it's far more than a trivial mention. It's reliable. It's a secondary source independent of it's subject. Nfitz (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as I consider he has sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and I disagree with BilledMammal's assessment. There was easily enough to expand the article to outline a significant portion of his soccer career, without getting into various off-line publications. What was easy to find points towards there being considerably more information as I have not yet researched the various games he played in or his early soccer background. NealeWellington (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sources in the article show this person clearly passes WP:GNG, no matter how many time the anti-sports deletionists shout delete at it. Joseph2302</b> (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG (already presented). Don't understand the nomination and the "need" to try and delete sports articles. Kante4 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - on balance, the sources presented (excluding the usual squad lists and stats repositories) just about meet the GNG in my opinion. The point made above about him not being the main subject of one of the articles is neither here nor there since GNG states that a topic does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That being said, I'm genuinely surprised at the lack of general media coverage for a modern international footballer and I think it shows how lenient the now-defunct NFOOTY guidelines really were. I think this one just scrapes by though. BigDom (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to BigDom - when I first saw this AfD, about a week ago, the article was pretty devoid of references. Those that are there now are from a very brief troll through items that are currently available on the internet. Much of Campbell's career sits in the cross over period when the internet was just taking off and will need research at a library level is needed to improve them. There will be a lot more information in the newspapers of the time and books. I'm leaving that up to people with more of an interest in soccar. NealeWellington (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've found a couple more refs myself through the Wikipedia Library which are both more than passing mentions. Have struck the "weak" part of my !vote now, I'm satisfied that he meets the GNG. BigDom (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Absurd nomination. Clearly notable, played over a dozen international matches. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you identify one source with in-depth coverage? (Even better would be WP:THREE.) --JBL (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See . BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this guy had played football for his local pub side I could understand. But he's an international footballer, easily meets WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Honestly, some of these nominations are getting to the point that it is making me question editing wikipedia - just ridiculous. Full international with multiple caps in the pre-internet area. Clearly will be other coverage available in written press.  Yet articles are created and stay with references to just Hugman.  Zanoni (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you identify one source with in-depth coverage? (Even better would be WP:THREE.) --JBL (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See . BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks— I agree this qualifies as one in-depth source. Is there a second? — JBL (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 etc. If I lived in New Zealand i am sure I could pop into a local library and search for plenty of articles around both the club and international career of this player. I don't and the i cannot use Papers Past as it only goes up to 1971. The whole 'let's try and prove GNG via internet sources' is flawed Zanoni (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The first link is clearly not in-depth coverage of Jeff, it’s in-depth coverage of his father with a few side comments about the son. It’s clear that this person is the subject of lots of passing mentions; please read WP:THREE to understand what a good answer to my question would look like. JBL (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment it's astonishing how poor the keep votes, as a whole, are. I see a half-dozen content-free personal attacks, I see a large amount of pure WP:ILIKEIT garbage, and I see only a couple of attempts to answer the question that needs answering: are there sources that cover this person in-depth?  The essay WP:THREE explains how to do this in a way that would be convincing to people who do not accept the premise that every international soccer player ever should have an article in Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to reply and complain at everyone that votes a way you dislike- this is clear WP:HOUNDING. There are 32 sources, and seems to meet WP:GNG, no matter how much you shout at and harass people who say it passes GNG. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have done is harassing or hounding anyone, let alone yelling — and I haven’t even !voted. So you can fuck right off, thanks. —JBL (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes GNG. I also think deleting quality articles on international footballers do not at all improve the encyclopedia, and so I base my position partly on IAR as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.