Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Ramsey


 * 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. SpinningSpark 18:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Josh Ramsey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, which all football/soccer players must meet in addition to WP:NFOOTY. A single pro-level appearance is no longer sufficient to assume notability, and he's only on the U19 national team, not the full national team, so we can't assume notability based on that either. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. GNG coverage not demonstrated and no guarantee he will garner more attention in the future given the league he plays in. JoelleJay (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - young player with ongoing career, meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On this logic, this bio is WP:TOOSOON. We don't write about people assuming that they will become notable if their career continues, we write about people who are already notable. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Pre GiantSnowman. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is 18 years old passes WP:FOOTY and has an ongoing career.SNGs including WP:FOOTY ,WP:NBASKETBALL ,WP:NCRIC exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , is there any certainty that he will ever meet GNG? He's not even on the roster for a USL team; he's just an academy recruit who played a game or two for them and is now back to a U19. No guarantee he will play pro again. Why have a BLP on a non-notable person hanging around on the off-chance that he eventually garners GNG coverage? No one here can claim his current station (Dallas U19) presumes SIGCOV, and it's CRYSTAL to assume that he will both return to USL and that his playing in USL will correspond to coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Soccerway, he came on in the 91st minute of the match. This has to be one of the thinnest and weakest passings of NFOOTBALL ever. Has anyone located any WP:SIGCOV? With a name as common as his, it's hard to get relevant hits. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally,, your interpretation of how the various WP:NSPORTS SNGs work are the reverse of the present community consensus. It is explicitly stated at the top of NSPORTS in the FAQ that "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" and "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline." If NFOOTY does not accurately predict GNG levels of coverage (and it's been obvious for years that it doesn't), then the solution is to adjust NFOOTY to be more predictive of GNG-compliant coverage, not to keep thousands of articles on non-notable sportspeople based on a flawed SNG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping to as I realized I spelled it wrong the first time. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See my comment immediately above re: NSPORTS SNGs and how they explicitly don't replace the GNG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If only this was understood by all admins...~ JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The GNG doesn't supersede NSPORT, either. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , the FAQ at the very top of NSPORT clearly and explicitly states that it does, actually: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" (in other words, GNG > SNG) and "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline." (My bold on both). Do you have any sources that suggest that Josh Ramsey meets the GNG, as clearly required by NSPORTS? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the first paragraph of NSPORT: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (my bold). Mattythewhite (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and per Q5 in the FAQ: Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline. So, once again I ask - where are the sources? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I found fut411, which has some coverage. Has anyone found anything else which might give this some chance of GNG? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's about a paragraph of coverage and a light-hitting interview with no byline from a blog which appears to allow user-generated content (if you click on the 3 dots beside the main menu at the top it says "Hey FUT411 Community! Log in or sign up to create your own posts."). There's no about or staff page and no indication of an editorial policy. In terms of impact/audience/significance, FUT411 has... 24 followers on Twitter. It's just not an RS, especially for a BLP. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good point. In that case, there's practically nothing on him. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've made an honest attempt to find sources but there doesn't seem to be even a smidgen of WP:RS coverage about this youngster. SIGCOV not demonstrated. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The GNG supercedes the various SNGs. In this case there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and therefore the GNG is not met. Jack Frost (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, it's quite clear from the above discussion that NFOOTY is insufficient in the absence of sources. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete TOOSOON, fails GNG. NFOOTY alone is not acceptable. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:50, 22 August 2021 (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.