Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Main (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   delete. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. The balance of discussion indicates that the article fails to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE given the quality of the sources. Those favouring retention seemed to do so on the basis of future notability (e.g. will soon join a pro team), google hits (e.g. ranks second in Google), or performance in his football matches (e.g. number of goals scored over his career). These arguments have little or no rounding in policy, and so the consensus of this discussion favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Main
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-professional football (soccer) player who has never played above the sixth level of English football, at which there are no fully professional teams - thereby fails WP:ATHLETE. Previously deleted via AfD last May. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. He fell short of the required criteria back then, and he falls short now. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league, and there's nothing to suggest he's notable in any other field. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and previous debate. GiantSnowman 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.I oppose deletion. Allthough Jon Main hasn't played in a professional league, he has scored almost twice as much as the no 2 top scorer in the league. And Jon Main is also better known and more popular than most of the player that played in Conference National and even in the Coca-Cola League, even by a person that lives outside of the United Kingdom and Europe (myself as example). Main has also broken and won many records and even had a fanclub page in Facebook and Myspace, I think the reason is quite enough and should make Jon Main a player of some importance. Do not discriminate player that played in an amatuer league, some of them have credential to grow and is even better than the professional football player. And I hope someone who wanted to propose this article for deletion again in future can give a very concrete reason for his/her doings. I simply cant understand for the fact that this article is being nominated for deletion only for a very simple and a short reason : Never played professional football. Is this is kinda of joke ? — Arteyu ?  Blame it on me !  17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wimbledon will be promoted this season to the Conference South. His goal scoring records are notable enough to keep his page anyway, I was delighted to find him here because I wanted to find out more about him. JAStewart (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. AFC Wimbledon is a semi-pro football club and currently has unprecedented lead in Conference South and surely will be promoted to Conference National next season. Most of the clubs in the Conference National is registered as fully professional footy club, and AFC Wimbledon will surely do that when they gets promoted. as per citations, & references, it can easily be improved, many articles on Main on the web 194.116.199.218 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. no use for you to delete it, ppl will recreate this article though. ppl will still recreate the article on him despite being deleted hundredth of times, because main plays an important figure among football fan and ppl in england. you should try to improve the article, so that ppl can know more about him, deleting the article is not the answer. Samanthaness (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has unbelievable footy records & has also been linked to many league 1 & 2 clubs. Will be called to join a pro team very soon. Article can be easily upgraded --118.107.192.22 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There are plenty of sources about him. albeit from local papers. The key issue is whether that is enough given the nature of the league. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be plenty of third-party sources as demonstrated by the link above. This means he passes WP:N. If a subject passes the general notability guidelines, there is no need for the subject to pass the specific athlete/corp/music/etc. guidelines as well.  A high school player may be notable if he or she has significant coverage in reliable third party sources; the fact that they do not meet WP:ATHLETE as well does NOT take away from the notability met as per WP:N.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to his impreesive scoring record. I actually searched Wikipedia for this page to learn more about him Arnemann (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Main is scoring at a record pace and is the driving force for a rather unprecedented run by AFC Wimbledon, given their history. Further, the team is far more notable and famous than their league position suggests given the history behind their creation and their incredible success. Preceding unsigned comment by User:76.213.235.148 at  13:06, 25 February 2009
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Player fails WP:Athlete and from what I can see, also fails WP:Notability, the sources noted above on Google news are almost entirely match reports where the player is mentioned as having performed some action in the game (Main is expected to be fit for the game, Main scored a goal in this match - and so on), I do not think there are enough articles on him that constitute "Significant coverage" which as per WP:Notability means "that sources address the subject directly in detail". He may (or may not) be in a professional team soon and AFC Wimbledon may (or may not) be promoted this season but Wikipedia is definitely not a crystal ball. Camw (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment — References, citations & links has been added to the article. — Arteyu ?  Blame it on me !  18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - most of the keep !votes seem to be on the basis of ILIKEIT (he has scored lots of goals and/or should be treated differently because he plays for AFC Wimbledon) or CRYSTAL (he will probably be signed by a professional team soon)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep --- per good reasoning by Theseeker4 60.48.246.75 (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Camw. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-pro league. (Note for those less well-acquainted with the levels of English football: even if crystal-balling were acceptable, and even if AFC Wimbledon are promoted this season, the league they will be promoted to is still not a fully-pro league.) Not enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BIO. Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Disagree. As far as I am concerned, the article already passes WP:N, the subject passes the general notability guidelines, so there is no need for it to pass WP:ATHLETE and so on. The article got loads of references and links, besides the daily page view for the article is also quite high compared to other new entrants. The article passes the MAIN rules for article inclusion in Wikipedia so there is no need for deletion. The subject also have some importance to show. He holds many league records and is the current topscorer and so on. Main got "The People's Support". He is so like a champ to them. 118.107.192.22 (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article as written meets GNG (sourcing looks fine, articles are about the player though often short). WP:ATHLETE defers to GNG.  Hobit (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, has never played in a fully-professional league thus failing WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why keep mentioning WP:ATHLETE ?, the subject already passes WP:N basic criteria for inclusion. This sentence is written under the Additional Criteria section, pls read it carefully "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Jon Main may fail WP:ATHLETE, but given that WP:N exceeds WP:ATHLETE, he already passes the criteria for inclusion. Main also passes WP:BIO though 60.48.246.75 (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that failing WP:ATHLETE isn't relevant if the subject passes the basic notability criteria, though there's no real need to write it in big letters. However, the references supplied say only that the subject is a part-time footballer who scored a lot of goals for his previous club playing in a regional league at the seventh level of English football, scored a lot of goals this season for his current club playing in a regional league at the sixth level of English football, and quite fancies playing at a higher level. What the closing admin will have to consider is whether that constitutes significant enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:N / WP:BIO. Similar quality of referencing could be found for hundreds of other part-time players who have never played professional sport, which reflects interestingly on the English media's obsessive reporting on football right down to very low levels. Local papers have always written about local football in detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)Response to IP above Because every kid who has ever kicked a ball has stuff written about them because football is one of those things people can't get enough of. Without setting some criteria Wikipedia will simply become a big database of non notables who happen to walk the earth - including my 6 year old son who has had both his photo and short article in the paper already, having scored over 30 goals in the 7th grade. When that day comes, Wikipedia will die and be replaced by something a bit more selective about inclusion, because entering "Craig Williams" (completely random name) will produce hundreds of wiki articles (based on the fact this gave me 195000 Ghits just now) and you will never find the actual notable one you wish to look up unless you know enough about him to not need to look him up. At the end of the day you think this lad is notable because he had his name in the paper, but he is merely a small fish that looks like a big fish because he is the biggest fish in his little pond. The small fish is not truly notable unless he makes it big in the big pond-- Club Oranje T 11:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per me. I believe he is likely to make it one day, but article should not actually exist until that day comes per WP:CRYSTAL. Unlike some, I don't believe a couple of lines in a newspaper is notability, it is merely sports journalists giving ordinary folk their 15 minutes of fame scrapping to make a living, -- Club Oranje T 11:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While that's a reasonable opinion, I don't see how it jives with either WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. From the top of WP:ATHLETE "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Hobit (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no professional appearances, no notability. We absolutely need to put a line between notability and non-notability for footballers based on their achievements, and playing in the Conference South (English 6th tier) cannot be enough, including for the league topscorer. Period. --Angelo (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked this of others, but I'll ask one more time and a bit more carefully. In your opinion does the subject meet WP:N?  WP:BIO?  As there are plenty of sources about this subject in the article, it sems that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." is fairly trivially met.  It seems that you are arguing that these guidelines are wrong here (and I think that's a general sense of many with respect to athletes) not that the guidelines aren't met. Sorry if I'm putting (mistaken) words in your mouth.  Hobit (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it says it is presumed, not it is guaranteed. Presumption is not enough, as is being in the local news. Amateur leagues such as Conference South naturally receive local coverage in cities, towns and neighbourhoods where the league teams play. I don't live in Italy anymore, but if you go to Sicily and buy the Monday edition of the Giornale di Sicilia, you will find citations for all amateur leagues from Eccellenza to Seconda Categoria, that is the second-bottom league in the whole Italian football panorama. --Angelo (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough answer. I strongly disagree with that reading of WP:N and it's application here, but thanks for explaining. If that opinion in fact has consensous it should be stated so in WP:ATHLETE.  That's a huge exception to our inclusion guidelines and isn't hinted at in them.  Hobit (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Angelo and would add that the main aim here is to build an encyclopaedia. The question should be asked for each and every entry: has this subject done or achieved something of "encyclopaedic note". Truly notable subjects are worthy of inclusion regardless of whether they have coverage; A player that represented Uruguay as they won the first World Cup is significantly more notable than one who today plays 6 levels down from the top, yet there is probably significantly less coverage of the Uruguayan (thanks to the internet mostly). Yes, notability gets coverage, but not all coverage is notability. Lads playing in your local league are not as notable as lads playing in my local league....from my perspective.-- Club Oranje T 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I don't know of a policy or guideline that would support that other than (obviously) WP:IAR. If that's what you all want (in the sports area) I don't have much of an objection.  But it should be written down someplace. WP:ATHLETE specifically defers to published sources.  If that's not where conscious really is, than it should be changed.  But for now, I think this should be kept as it meets all relevant guidelines and a small number of editors shouldn't be overriding that because they think the guidelines are wrong (rather than that this is a special case which is reasonable for a small number of editors to claim). Hobit (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This I believe has partially been done with WP:FOOTYN, but is still unofficial guideline and not integrated with WP:ATHLETE. It is something that probably should be given a little nudge by somebody.-- Club Oranje T 08:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on the Delete Vote — The Delete voters particularly mentioning about something that may be true. But it is not even mentioned in WP:N & WP:ATHLETE. There is no concrete regulations that supports their state. There is nothing that the DELETE voters have mentioned is in the regulation itself, it is kind of BIAS to delete this article by neglecting the rules. The FACT is, the article already passes WP:N given the current rules for WP:N, the decision must be made according to the rules. How can we say that the references given is not reliable & how far the reliability is, can someone give me a concrete measurement ? Is there any very concrete reason to say that the references is not reliable ? What is the meaning of the "no notability" words mentioned by Angelo in his vote ? There are thousands of so called pro league ppl bio is in Wikipedia itself that only have a sentence or two in the article, some has remained in Wikipedia for three to four years with only one edits or two. Why is that kind of article is still in Wikipedia if people won't search for it ?? Their daily page hits is only 1 or 2 per day, is it worth it to be in Wikipedia, only for a simple reason, ohh he plays in the pro-league and he passes WP:N & so on. Wikipedia SHOULD be a place where there is articles that people will look for, like "Jon Main", not only because it passes WP:N and other guidelines. I agree that the guidelines is important to show that the article is reliable but the people's wants and demand should stand in the first place. I do agree to some of the arguments, I know that this article means nothing to "you", or maybe "us". But do you know the value and the importance of this article to the people out there? Everyday people were searching and searching for Jon Main article, but they couldn't find one because articles & news about him is being deleted over and over again. It is some kind of "UNDERESTIMATION" to the non-league footballers & amateurs, whatever they do, it is not even recognized by the media, even if he/she has won many honours and broken so many records. Can we all, as Wikipedians Keep this article as a show of thankfulness to him, we didn't give him any money or anything, but we can give him a place in "Wikipedia" that he can be proud of. Not only for him, but also to the non-league footballers in all around the world, to the people that lives in Greater London and also to the AFC Wimbledon and Wimbledon FC supporters. I know that Jon Main is a small fish that lives in a small pond (that's what ClubOranje mentioned), but to me Jon Main is a small fish that is not given enough water and food, only because the fish is small and ppl look at it as useless. — Arteyu ?  Blame it on me !  10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On one hand you talk about sticking to the official policy and then provide some reasons to keep the article that don't have any place in any wikipedia policy (because we should be thankful for the players actions, because others aren't recognised by the media and so on). I don't agree that the article passes the test for notability ("Significant coverage" whereby "that sources address the subject directly in detail"), but there is no set measurement for this test and that is why we are having this discussion. Camw (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (response to Arteyu) Are you really saying we should keep a Wikipedia artcle because people are tying to look him up and can't find anything on him because "articles & news about him is being deleted over and over again"? Surely that is counter to the multitude of non trivial reliable sources claimed above. Additionally, a Wikipedia article should not exist as "a show of thankfulness to him". If you wan't to show someone thanks, buy them a gift or send them a card. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.-- Club Oranje T 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The page view for Jon Main is quite high for a new article. It is second in Google if you search for "Jon Main". Just giving out some stats 118.107.192.22 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG STRONG KEEP JON MAIN IS A GREAT PLAYER THOUGH THAT HE PLAYS FOR AFC WIMBLEDON, GO GO GO JONNY !!! GO GO DONS !!! YOU'RE THE BEST !!! JONNY IS EVEN BETTER THAN KAKA AND CRISTANO !!!!
 * Keep Pls give the article some lease of life. Main really deserved it. 60.50.14.179 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More details on why it should be kept Given is the page view for this article Jon Main Wikipedia Page View
 * The page view is quite high because there is an active AfD debate on it that has been canvassed. Just putting the stats in perspective.-- Club Oranje T 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is about 50 hits per day before AfD, higher than most League 2 and League one club player 118.100.160.178 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment for closing admin and all guys around: please keep in mind that this is not an election, and I can't avoid noticing almost all keep !votes are coming from AFC Wimbledon fans (mostly anonymous user with no significant edit history in the project). Wikipedia is based on consensus, not voterigging, and I can't understand people citing reasons to keep this article like "he is a great player, even better than Kaka" (never watched him playing, but I don't really think so), "he really deserved it" (anyone might deserve it, actually), "he is the topscorer" (so what?), "he will join a pro team very soon" (who knows?!?) or "is second in Google" (unfortunately for you, I am a IT expert, with a major in web engines and IR, and I can assure you there is absolutely no connection between being "second in Google" and the number of views). My feeling is that nobody would have argued about this case if the subject were going to play for another team, such as for instance Basingstoke Town F.C., that coincidentally plays in the same league of AFC Wimbledon. --Angelo (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or REDIRECT the article does not seem to pass the criteria for deletion, so i suggest it to be kept. to delete it is a cruel decision as some users have tried their hard to retain and mantain it by searching for reliable resources and by expanding the article. i think it should be redirected to AFC Wimbledon rather than to be deleted. closure admin, i hope that you can read the Keep vote thoroughly and make your decision wisely. we have been trying our best to retain the article, i hope that your decision is to redirect or to keep it. it would be very sad for us and to all jon main fan if it is still deleted Samanthaness (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect 118.100.160.178 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some writer worked hard on that article. They may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Pls show some kindness, Wikipedia is the only place that we can find thorough information about Jon Main, we need it 118.100.160.178 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia is the "only place that we can find thorough information about Jon Main" then that merely reinforces that he is not really notable..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. 40 goals in 41 games; leading league in scoring, well written and researched article.  WP:CS would suggest that this type of article should be kept. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having scored lots of goals is not a policy-based reason for keeping. If a player had scored 120 goals in 40 games in the Isle of Wight Saturday Football League, would that be a reason to keep.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Me and my friends once played a kicakbout in which we scored over 50 goals; should we get our own articles as well then? GiantSnowman 13:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Article popularity should also be counted Emmanthe (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems that there isn't enough evidence to delete this article. Article has been edited in proper and passes WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:CS & GNG. Emmanthe (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The player fails the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN, set up to deal with exactly this type of situation. He may be the leagues top scorer this season, but so has a player every season and that doesn't infer notably. It is very questionable whether he passes WP:BIO and WP:N as there is a lack of reliable secondary sources for Jon listed in the article. The references provided either do not have him as the subject 1 or are unreliable 2. Arguments such as page view statistics, he deserves it and users trying hard are redundant as per Wikipedia policy. The discussion is to determine whether he is notable for this encyclopedia, and the moment, he is not. If he passes the notablity stage in the future, the article can be recreated in it's current state, saving all the current work that has gone into it. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2009 (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.