Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Fish


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nicky Fish

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD, due to this player having played one league cup match in a six-year spell at Cardiff City, but I feel despite this he fails to meet WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 12:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 12:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679  12:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Even if he may technically meet WP:NSPORT, he so clearly fails WP:GNG that deleting this article is only common sense. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment My common sense told me to search google, and I came up with this, this. I'd say he passes WP:V and WP:GNG PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – That one league cup match was against a fully pro club, so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. However, WP:GNG is the #1 priority here and he clearly fails in that area. – Michael (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Let's show some WP:COMMONSENSE. GiantSnowman 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd have thought common sense would push people towards keeping rather than deleting... There are real independent sources already present in the article, one of which is recent enough to indicate ongoing media interest several years after the accident that cut short Mr Fish's football career. This isn't a one-line stub that references only stats listings. Passing the subject-specific notability guideline, however "technically", affords a presumption of notability, and the sources already in the article make it likely that such a presumption would be justified. Please bear in mind the difference between the subject "clearly fail[ing]" GNG and the article not yet having demonstrated general notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - so he's notable for not playing more than 90 minutes of a league cup match, where teams regularly field junior and reserve players, then six years later playing in the fourth tier of Wales? Think WP:COMMONSENSE should be applied here. Cloudz 679  16:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he's presumed notable for passing WP:NFOOTBALL, and is still, for whatever reason, considered worth writing about in the media. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Struway is right. If you make an appearance in a competitive cup match that features two fully pro clubs, than that's good enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - taking a look at WP:NFOOTBALL, we can see no mention of playing cup competitions to grant notability. Only: "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable". Therefore there is no case to argue for this man passing NFOOTBALL - he has not played in such a league - and the article should be deleted. C 679 00:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is long-standing consensus that appearances in the Football League Cup are considered equivalent to appearances in a fully professional league. Entry to that competition is restricted to members of the Football League and Premier League, both fully professional leagues, and since the mid-1960s, has been obligatory for members of those leagues. I asked the question HERE some years ago, and AFAIK it remains the case. If it wasn't, I daresay the experienced deletionists above wouldn't have needed to appeal to common sense :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is a long-standing consensus that playing in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues is just as good as playing in a fully pro league. And as Struway pointed out, when he receives media coverage six years after he played that one match, I see no reason to delete it. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 *  Close as No Consensus  - This AfD was already relisted in order to gain a better consensus, and the result was an opinion to keep, which only muddied the waters further. Opinions are equally split. This article cannot be closed as a Keep or a Delete, relisting it is only a waste of everyone's time. Let this turkey die. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:55, 5 January 2013 (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.