Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Green (footballer)


 * 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. This was a very interesting discussion and something of a case study in the ongoing, wider discussions about the notability of sportspeople in relation to the general notability guideline. We started with a bare assertion that the subject is not notable, which was challenged, followed by a bare assertion that there must be sources, which was also challenged. then presented a detailed analysis of the level of coverage in the available sources, which for a time seemed to shift the consensus towards deletion. Yet at the same time, other editors showed it was possible to significantly expand the article based on these "insignificant" sources, though not everyone considered this sufficient to keep it. More sources, from more difficult-to-access print media, were presented as the discussion progressed, (e.g. in the final comment by ), somewhat undercutting Billed's source analysis and the !votes based on it.

What we end with, after a well-attended discussion, is no consensus to delete the article and, following long-standing convention at AfD, that means we're keeping it for now. But it's a productive lack of consensus: the implicit question here is whether it is possible for a subject to fail the GNG but still be notable? That is, notable in the most basic sense that we can write a stand-alone article on it that meets our core content policies and doesn't turn us into an indiscriminate collection of information. We have SNGs that recognise that it is possible to assemble encyclopaedic articles from many brief mentions—i.e. WP:NPROF—could this be the basis of a new consensus on the notability of footballers and other sportspeople? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Green (footballer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and England. Joeykai (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - speedy keep I don't get this nomination, this guy is mentioned in multiple books from the different clubs he played for. Clearly no interest in WP:BEFORE. Govvy (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you could point to any of these books, it would be great help. I'm not finding much on him other than trivial mentions on Newspapers.com, the British Newspaper Archive or Google/Google Books. Alvaldi (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on now, books like Swindon Town: The Register 1895-2015: An A-Z of Every First Team Player or QPR Player by Player, the list will just go on. He played for top clubs, there will be mentions in multiple books and if one bothers going to looking for those sources they will find enough on him. WP:OFFLINESOURCES exist. It really saddens me these nominations are happening. This whole mindset of a football player is not notable because his article is a simple stub article is a joke. The whole reason for WP:NFOOTBALL was to point to the fact that a professional league player, will have that coverage and they do. If it was a very small amount of games, and it was only one league club. That notability is very low in essence, but this nomination in against a league player stub article for a player who has played way over 100 league games. There will be a lot of coverage there for that amount, that's a lot of information to digest, from signing, to debut, to first goal for that club. That's why I find this particular nomination an absolute joke. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Those aren't likely to be useful sources; if a book covers ever person who played for Swindon Town, then the coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability. I also suspect the entry for players like this will be brief and not WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not useful sources?? Each book is a resource for people to learn about players of football clubs, nearly all football league clubs have a book on their players compiled and written by someone. Each time a player plays for a club, every game, this almanac data in a book, I don't understand why you say it's not useful information., if you're going down this route, this is going to be extremely dangerous for you, you're already making plenty of enemies of the football project, but your ability to no process information here is not helpful. You haven't provided evidence, you are negating what is true. When all you provide is wikipedia policy just turns you into a wiki-monkey with not much else to do. So please, unless your able to be constructive, don't bother providing negated theory. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. Not useful for determining notability. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Nothing says that book sources covering all of a team's players can't contribute to GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Govvy Just so we are on the same page, I'm not hellbent on deleting this or any other athletes article (I've saved quite a few the last few weeks by finding sources) and my question above was not some thinly disguised attempt to imply that there where no books. I also do not agree with BilledMammal that coverage in those books are necessarily routine. If there is significant coverage on him in these books, I believe they go towards GNG. The harsh truth is that these nominations are happening because the mass-creation of un-sourcable non-notable footballers (one-game-wonders and such) in the past have pissed off to many people so now we are in this hole with the strong possability of those maybe-notable players being dragged down into it. So we can continue to display are displeasure with it or find sources for these articles and maybe build up a case where we can demonstrate that players of this stature actually get significant coverage. I'd rather like to do the later. Now, these books you mentioned might have something so I will check if someone in the Wikiproject_Football has access to them and check if there is significant coverage on him there. Alvaldi (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Govvy. GiantSnowman 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable career but obviously, some additional sources wouldn't hurt. Eagleash (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, see source assessment table. I am unable to access two sources; if editors believe that either are WP:SIGCOV, can they please provide quotes demonstrating this?


 * BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, per expansion by Mattythewhite. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Mattythewhite's additions do not appear to demonstrate WP:GNG. Can editors who believe that they do list the sources they believe contribute to that?


 * BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There has been significant efforts to critique the sources provided in the article. These seem to indicate a lot of statistical sources but only a few which could be significant enough for GNG. Needs more discussion on the keep side of things to help illustrate where significant coverage is being located to help generate consensus that goes beyond simple votes. There is also a concerning lack of understanding of GNG on the keep side of things with at least one editor seeming to state that GNG can be passed without SIGCOV, when GNG and SIGCOV are the same thing with shortcuts for the two leading to the same text and SIGCOV is the first matter discussed as a requirement of GNG. Fundamentally there is nothing presented as yet on the keep side to show GNG bar a lot of statistical / primary sources. Am extending as a courtesy as there is no rush, but not sure how any reasonable closer could articulate a close to keep that was clearly grounded in accepted guidelines. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know why you said https://www.lfchistory.net is not independent with, "Official statistics site of Liverpool". At the bottom of the website it clearly says "This is an independent website not owned by Liverpool Football Club". Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The about page states What began as a hobby in 2002 has evolved into something much more than that proving a valuable resource to Liverpool Football Club culminating in an agreement with the club in 2009 effectively making LFChistory.net‘s stats the official stats of the club, a fact that Arnie and Gudmundur are incredibly proud of. But even if it was independent, it is clearly not WP:SIGCOV and does not contribute to WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a useable resource, I have nothing against the website, I agree it's not SIGCOV, but it can contribute to general coverage. You can pass an article on GNG without SIGCOV if there is enough general coverage, that is part of notability. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's usable for the article, but it doesn't contribute to GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You cannot pass GNG without SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you list the sources that you believe contribute to passing GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per source table, coverage is plainly routine. That's not enough for WP:GNG. agt x  17:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete For lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources". Coverage appears primarily to be routine mentions in lengthy lists. Also note that threatening and being abusive towards editors with a different view, as seen above, is wholly unacceptable behaviour at AfD or indeed anywhere on the project. AusLondonder (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support keeping this article - the addition of sources added on 2 May 2022 would probably be enough for that even though I don't have any access to those subscription references. If the article was not expanded and I see it as it was back in April, I would have supported to delete it for being far too short. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Delete The article itself is pretty well written, but per WP:GNG and the source analysis above, none of the references, literally zero, meet the "significant coverage" standard. Near as I can tell, there's not so much as a paragraph written about this guy in a single reliable, independent source, what is cobbled together here is more text than exists in any other source; literally all anyone has found is entries in a statistical database; that's not sufficient to pass GNG.  It's a noble effort to write a decent article, and I hate having to do it, but I must concur that there is not enough out there to pass the basic standards for having a stand-alone article about this player.  -- Jayron 32 17:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is now much improved with much more info about the player's past and history. unfortunately, due to when he played, we're not going to get in-depth coverage of the individual and I think this should be taken into consideration, re WP:GNG. NapHit (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails significant coverage requirement per WP:GNG Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 15:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources being discussed here are not significant enough, but the coverage now in the article is more than for many current footballers, articles recently kept at AFD, and articles created by editors who have supported deletion. A865 (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I fail to see how content you admit to be lacking in significant (reliable) sources would be a criterium for Keep, as it goes quite literally against the policies for WP:GNG and WP:BLP Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 19:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved, with more sources, but editors are still assessing notability based on the source analysis from an earlier version. A865 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The discussion here is almost entirely of the statistical sources; it's the other sources that are more useful for GNG-based notability. BilledMammal seems to be confusing the meaning of "significant" here with what a misunderstanding of Run-of-the-mill would suggest, although that is no more a policy or guideline than Significant coverage not required is (and football at this level - the top division in England - already stands out from most football that is played - see Run-of-the-mill). A865 (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the WP:THREE that you believe to be WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm perplexed at 's relist - and their comment that only a few of the (43!) sources are signficant! How many are needed. Sure, many are mentions, but there's some with GNG details. I'm at risk of refbombing, but I added a 44th reference. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a bonus 45th reference, that has a surprisingly detailed biography. I'll add to the article 22:49, 10 May 2022 (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.