- 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 Userfy - clear consensus to delete, creator wants to userfy, no harm in the latter. Giant Snowman 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Chris Kinnear ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has never played or managed at a fully professional level, so he fails WP:NFOOTY, and there is no indication of sufficient in-depth coverage to meet the GNG. Looking at the National League table at the moment, he stands a good chance of managing in a fully pro league next season, but there's a long way to go yet..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Userfy. I feel like the status on the nomination makes a very good point, that by May, he may well have a place on Wikipedia if he can get the club promoted. There isn't much information, so a delete may be the right idea, but also the article shouldn't really be lost to be re-written
Lee Vilenski(
talk) 12:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- TBF, the single sentence which the article currently consists of wouldn't be a huge chore to re-create..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question I did a google search and saw a few things so I decided to have a go at getting his article up to scratch, does it pass WP:GNG now? Govvy ( talk) 16:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete only known for playing football, so he must pass the football notability guidelines. A few scattered references cannot overcome this inherent failure.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert, that is not how the football notability guideline works. Somebody who is "only known for playing football", who fails NFOOTY but passes GNG, is notable. Please bear that in mind for future discussions so you don't keep making this erronious argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Cannot see that he passes WP:NFOOTY. As per nom, does not appear to have played or managed in a fully professional league. Eagleash ( talk) 21:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I am curious why people are looking towards NFooty before GNG, GNG should be reviewed first, Upon my google search I found some sources from the BBC, The Guardian (publisher in the Observer newspaper) and an article published in The Independent newspaper, also posted online. This is national coverage about this manager and there are more articles online for the local area of Dover. Although not hugely significant coverage, this in my view should be enough to pass GNG. He seems significant enough to the club of Margate to mention him on their history. 1, And does seem a very interesting figure to the history of Dover Athletic. This should all be taken into account for GNG. Govvy ( talk) 10:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Claim of sources to meet WP:GNG. Govvy, please link the sources you found, since no two people's searches are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Claim of sources to meet WP:GNG. Govvy, please link the sources you found, since no two people's searches are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete because the GNG is utterly useless at assessing the importance of a sports figure to the point where the star football player on the local secondary school's team is all but sure to pass the GNG in some countries, and we obviously never include them. NFOOTY while not written as an exclusionary guideline is in practice applied as one, because otherwise the acceptance criteria would depend on how journalists in your place of residence cover sports. The correct reading of NFOOTY is to assume that the sourcing that can be found for someone who does not pass it would be considered trivial in nature, and that only coverage outside of their sports career really should be assessed in counting towards it. That's if you want to think all Wikipedia policy is consistent. The easier way is to realize that it isn't, that in practice NFOOTY is exclusionary, and apply IAR, which is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, something that the GNG is not. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reply @ TonyBallioni: I really didn't understand your argument for deletion, General Notable guidelines tells you to source, this article isn't about a footballer, it's about a football manager at the top tier of non-league football in England. Of course he fails NFOOTY, the whole argument is about establishing GNG after that. Three sources are provided in the article from some of the biggest news agencies in the UK. Govvy ( talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- NFOOTY applies to managers as well. My argument is simple: any sports figure who has breathed and made money off of it in a Western country will pass the GNG. Full stop. That is why it is useless in virtually every sports related discussion. The GNG does not guarantee inclusion, it is a rebuttable presumption of inclusion and we can decide to not include a subject for any reason we want: Wikipedia has no rules. I am rebutting it by appealing to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE: if we include him, we have to include everyone at his level because they will have similar coverage, which really is a question for the football project, not this AfD. If we started regularly evaluating whether or not someone who failed the sports criteria passed the GNG it would be impossible to delete any Western sports figure. There is no significant coverage not related to his career, and we know that his career does not make him notable. As such, he gets deleted because we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ TonyBallioni: I still don't quite understand your argument, all that's written is about his management career in non-league football with some references from national coverage media. Not many managers get national coverage media in non-league football, so you won't have many articles like this. I see non of the problems you are talking about. Govvy ( talk) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per the WP:NFOOTY failure. I agree with Tony that GNG is often useless for football bios; I could quite easily write a well-sourced article on players at the eighth level in England, but I don't because we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and NFOOTY is that line. Number 5 7 22:52, 12 November 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.
- 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 Userfy - clear consensus to delete, creator wants to userfy, no harm in the latter. Giant Snowman 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Chris Kinnear ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has never played or managed at a fully professional level, so he fails WP:NFOOTY, and there is no indication of sufficient in-depth coverage to meet the GNG. Looking at the National League table at the moment, he stands a good chance of managing in a fully pro league next season, but there's a long way to go yet..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Userfy. I feel like the status on the nomination makes a very good point, that by May, he may well have a place on Wikipedia if he can get the club promoted. There isn't much information, so a delete may be the right idea, but also the article shouldn't really be lost to be re-written
Lee Vilenski(
talk) 12:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- TBF, the single sentence which the article currently consists of wouldn't be a huge chore to re-create..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question I did a google search and saw a few things so I decided to have a go at getting his article up to scratch, does it pass WP:GNG now? Govvy ( talk) 16:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete only known for playing football, so he must pass the football notability guidelines. A few scattered references cannot overcome this inherent failure.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert, that is not how the football notability guideline works. Somebody who is "only known for playing football", who fails NFOOTY but passes GNG, is notable. Please bear that in mind for future discussions so you don't keep making this erronious argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Cannot see that he passes WP:NFOOTY. As per nom, does not appear to have played or managed in a fully professional league. Eagleash ( talk) 21:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I am curious why people are looking towards NFooty before GNG, GNG should be reviewed first, Upon my google search I found some sources from the BBC, The Guardian (publisher in the Observer newspaper) and an article published in The Independent newspaper, also posted online. This is national coverage about this manager and there are more articles online for the local area of Dover. Although not hugely significant coverage, this in my view should be enough to pass GNG. He seems significant enough to the club of Margate to mention him on their history. 1, And does seem a very interesting figure to the history of Dover Athletic. This should all be taken into account for GNG. Govvy ( talk) 10:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Claim of sources to meet WP:GNG. Govvy, please link the sources you found, since no two people's searches are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Claim of sources to meet WP:GNG. Govvy, please link the sources you found, since no two people's searches are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete because the GNG is utterly useless at assessing the importance of a sports figure to the point where the star football player on the local secondary school's team is all but sure to pass the GNG in some countries, and we obviously never include them. NFOOTY while not written as an exclusionary guideline is in practice applied as one, because otherwise the acceptance criteria would depend on how journalists in your place of residence cover sports. The correct reading of NFOOTY is to assume that the sourcing that can be found for someone who does not pass it would be considered trivial in nature, and that only coverage outside of their sports career really should be assessed in counting towards it. That's if you want to think all Wikipedia policy is consistent. The easier way is to realize that it isn't, that in practice NFOOTY is exclusionary, and apply IAR, which is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, something that the GNG is not. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reply @ TonyBallioni: I really didn't understand your argument for deletion, General Notable guidelines tells you to source, this article isn't about a footballer, it's about a football manager at the top tier of non-league football in England. Of course he fails NFOOTY, the whole argument is about establishing GNG after that. Three sources are provided in the article from some of the biggest news agencies in the UK. Govvy ( talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- NFOOTY applies to managers as well. My argument is simple: any sports figure who has breathed and made money off of it in a Western country will pass the GNG. Full stop. That is why it is useless in virtually every sports related discussion. The GNG does not guarantee inclusion, it is a rebuttable presumption of inclusion and we can decide to not include a subject for any reason we want: Wikipedia has no rules. I am rebutting it by appealing to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE: if we include him, we have to include everyone at his level because they will have similar coverage, which really is a question for the football project, not this AfD. If we started regularly evaluating whether or not someone who failed the sports criteria passed the GNG it would be impossible to delete any Western sports figure. There is no significant coverage not related to his career, and we know that his career does not make him notable. As such, he gets deleted because we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ TonyBallioni: I still don't quite understand your argument, all that's written is about his management career in non-league football with some references from national coverage media. Not many managers get national coverage media in non-league football, so you won't have many articles like this. I see non of the problems you are talking about. Govvy ( talk) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per the WP:NFOOTY failure. I agree with Tony that GNG is often useless for football bios; I could quite easily write a well-sourced article on players at the eighth level in England, but I don't because we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and NFOOTY is that line. Number 5 7 22:52, 12 November 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.