Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Ackerman


 * 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.

As WP:NSPORT is currently written, meeting WP:NFOOTY is only an indicator that WP:GNG is met but GNG has to be met as well for inclusion (it has been that way since 2010). GNG does not trump SNGs in every case but it does trump those SNGs that explicitly require GNG to be met (which includes WP:NSPORT but not the equally applicable WP:BASIC). Arguing that a subject is notable solely because it meets WP:NFOOTY and does not have to meet WP:GNG is thus incorrect.

That said, when WP:NFOOTY is met, especially when the subject was active before the internet age, the argument that sources probably exist holds some weight. Also, Struway2 added sources that were not discussed. In the end, there is no consensus whether this article should be deleted (with alternatives such as redirecting to the club's article not even be discussed) and unlikely to exist after relisting.

Regards  So Why  08:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tony Ackerman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Played only 4 games of football. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - a handful of appearances, especially now his career is well and truly over(to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and Fenix down, fails WP:GNG and not even sure the subject passes WP:NFOOTY. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Leyton Orient F.C., given that his claim to notability is playing for them. GiantSnowman 16:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL - the "doesn't meet GNG rule" is usually reserved for those with one or 2 appearances, four is enough IMO. GiantSnowman 16:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Question Why? Did those extra 2 appearances give him more than the routine coverage only 2 did? --SuperJew (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL, by playing in the Football League for Orient. I've added a bit to the article: sources include a short Daily Mirror piece about his having two games in a week in the reserves, signing a pro contract, and going straight into the team for the next day's match, w/quote from manager. Doesn't demonstrate GNG, but it demonstrates a reasonable presumption of it if one had greater access to contemporary newspapers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL, regardless of whether WP:GNG is met. I see "common sense" is cited a lot in these AfDs, but I can't see what sense there is in contributing to the encyclopedia's systemic recentist bias by deleting historic biographies.  Contemporary sources are more difficult to locate, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NFOOTBALL is a guideline which is biased toward keeping male footballers. --SuperJew (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As is WP:GNG. So your solution to that is to seek the deletion of a raft of male footballer biographies...?  Why not do something to help demonstrate the notability of female player articles? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL per above. See also WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM. Smartyllama (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please read WP:BIAS --SuperJew (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You started this AfD, I assumed in good faith because you believed this player did not meet GNG. You now seem to be trying to use it as a forum to discuss gender bias. YOu know full well this is not the right forum, and must be aware that this makes your actions look really quite POINT-y. Please restrict your comments in this discussion to the notability of the player in question. Fenix down (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Satisfies NFOOTBALL. whilst the article does not demonstrate a passing of GNG that does not demonstrate that the subject "fails" GNG. It might just mean offline sources have yet to be found. The oft trotted out lie that GNG trumps SNGs is just misdirection, wp:NOTABILITY says no such thing. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Number of games played doesn't matter. Ackerman meets NFOOTY and is presumed notable. — The   Magnificentist  09:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as article makes no indication of satisfying the GNG. I found a handful of match reports (e.g., STFC website and the like, but nothing cited in the article or online suggests significant coverage exists. If offline sources exist and can be found, the article can be restored and expanded at that time. For now, it's a perma-stub. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above by duffbeerforme, GNG doesnt trump SNGs. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The SNG simply establishes a presumption of notability based on expected GNG-compliance. This article has existed for nearly 4 years without reaching that bar, and based on my review of online sources, I can't see it happening. If the offline sources exist, some editor will need to establish that and hopefully expand this stub. For now, I see no reason to keep it. Jogurney (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PILLARS 1 and 5. Articles should be considered as a set not just individually (see Articles for deletion/Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott) and the subject notability guideline identifies appropriate sets of articles. Peter James (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What set is Ackerman part of? --SuperJew (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2017 (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.