Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Jones (footballer, born 1980)


 * 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. If having played in a fully professional league doesn't count and WP:GNG is the only guideline that matters, then WP:NFOOTY is totally worthless and should be removed. Feel free to start an RfC on the matter. Until then, NFOOTY has to mean something in the face of whether GNG is met or not. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Matthew Jones (footballer, born 1980)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the subject meets, WP:NFOOTY by virtue of having played in a fully-professional league, he fails WP:GNG. I attempted to search with various terms, but found nothing at all that was about this Matthew Jones from Shrewsbury. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, problems with thousands of non-GNG'y Football League player articles should be handled in another manner than singling some out every once in a while. At least in the cases where the player played more than a few minutes of one game. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 12:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 17:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above arguments are solely based on NFOOTY and are invalid, per the FAQ for NSPORTS, which reads:


 * I've bolded for emphasis. NFOOTY is a presumption of notability that guards against speedy deletion and arguably PROD. It does not mandate the keeping of an article about which no in-depth sources have been located. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I tried looking for some sources to improve the article, but I am not seeing them. This article is very weak and currently fails GNG. Unless there is an improvement, I would agree with PMC's assessment. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom even admits he meets WP:NFOOTY! Daft nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate that you took into studied consideration my comment regarding GNG and NSPORTS and did not simply resort to childish name-calling. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The challenge here is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. It is the consensus of the community that: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. (Per RFC The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive). The closing admin will need to evaluate the NFOOTY/NFOOTBALL arguments given above in the context of community consensus. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2020 (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.