Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dougall


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth Dougall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based a speculative claim that he would play for SC Telstar in the future. The inadmissibility of notability based potential future appearances remains one of the strongest and longest standing consensuses of the WikiProject football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully professional league.Simione001 (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - As of 27 September 2014, Kenneth Dougall has played eight times this season for SC Telstar in the Eerste Divisie which is a Fully Professional League therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm changing my comment again. He has now made his début in a Fully professional league therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. This was not the case at the time of nomination., , , and  do you want to reconsider your comment in light of this??? IJA (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. soccerway seems to indicate that he has not in fact played, merely been an unused sub in all games so far this season, the telstar website does not categorically state he played, though willing to be corrected on this. Per WP:CRYSTAL he is not notable at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - now meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a misinterpretation of WP:CRYSTAL. Crystal is about unverifiable speculation. It allows for things that are almost certain to occur. While a newly signed 15-year old would indeed by Crystal, a midfielder who has been on the bench for 6 out of the last 7 weeks, is almost certain to make an appearance.


 * Delete not notable (yet). Haven't played in a WP:FPL, fails WP:NFOOTBALL.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  11:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to Drafts Player has been on bench for 6 of last 7 starts for a fully-professional team. I don't see any point completely deleting article only to restore in a few weeks. Use WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH instead of Waste of Time. Deleting this article only to recreate it in a few weeks or months is a complete waste of everyone's time. We've seen time and time again that these articles for players on fully professional teams (especially those who are not keepers) who are on the bench week-after-week almost always get recreated legitimately. We've also seen that often the articles are rewritten from scratch losing information, and often with no restoration of the edit history. There is WP:NOHARM in simply waiting a few weeks to see what happens; the article can easily be deleted in the future. Nfitz (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - made his professional debut. GiantSnowman 16:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 *  Move to Drafts namespace Keep until he makes his debut, as per Nfitz. This is someone on the cusp of a debut, not a youth league only player. Made his debut a few hours ago. See https://twitter.com/Telstar1963NV/status/518123872814915584 The-Pope (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to Drafts namespace makes sense to me, per Nfitz and The-Pope above. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - as nominator. Having made his debut, the article now passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - perhaps we can stop wasting everyone's time by nominating players for deletion who are almost certain to be making a fully professional appearance within days. Simply note the article, and bring it to deletion a few weeks later, if it doesn't seem that they will actually appear. Nfitz (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - As this AfD clearly indicates, there is no need for such a stance. If players meet a guidline during a discussion then opinions change, if not, they are not notable and should be deleted. Fenix down (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - perhaps we can stop wasting everyone's time by creating articles for players who are yet to make a fully professional appearance. We create articles for people who are notable, we don't create articles about people who are not yet notable and then sit around waiting for them to become notable. Simply note the person and bring it to Wikipedia a few weeks later, if they actually appear.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:50, 6 October 2014 (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.