Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Macleod (footballer) (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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Macleod (footballer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a footballer who plays in the Scottish third division which isn't a fully pro league. Therefore the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, the player hasn't received any significant coverage so he fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - certainly fails WP:NFOOTBALL; the question is whether or not he passes WP:GNG. I don't think he does - he has not been the recipient of significant third-party coverage. The article certainly has lots of sources, but if you take the time to look at them they don't cover this person in nearly enough detail. Many are basic match reports. GiantSnowman 11:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep on WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL. Just for clarity sake I was the nominator second time round this being the third. It still obviously doesn't pass WP:FOOTY as he has only played in the Scottish Third Division which isn't a fully professional league. Despite lengthy improvements it still fails WP:GNG as the vast majority the of sources are no more then routine match reports. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is clearly there. Sparhelda 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where? – Michael (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Third party sources such as here and here clearly show his notability, having started every game for Rangers this season. Sparhelda 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – Notability is not clearly established and hasn't been at any of the other AFD's. Playing for a notable club does not automatically make you notable. Also does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Blethering  Scot  22:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This significant third party source on MacLeod indicates clearly his notability. His club is notable so all we are left with is that he doesn't play in a fully pro-league even though his club is fully pro. Deletion would therefore be just a box ticking exercise.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Apparently Charles Green (businessman) has "bought the history" of Paulo Maldini, which now belongs to the hitherto-anonymous Lewis McLeod. This has been ratified by the SFL and Jim Traynor has written an article about it. 176.253.82.115 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Above contribution is clearly rubbish/vandalism -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Player passes WP:GNG with significant non-routine coverage in third-party sources. An excess of references in addition to these is no reason for deletion. Sgt Elvan (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2012 (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.