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 delete. Vote-wise things are quite close but the delete votes are adamant there aren't sources to satisfy gng and the keep votes do nothing to suggest otherwise. GNG is the most important guideline and there is nothing here to indicate any significant coverage.
Fenix down (
talk)
22:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)reply
PROD contested with the wording: "meets NFOOTBALL by playing in the Scottish Championship prior to 2019". The Scottish second tier has never been '
fully professional' per clear consensus on the FPL talk page so this article fails NFOOTY and more importantly fails WP:GNG.
Bring back Daz Sampson (
talk)
19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as per my rationale when contesting the PROD. This player has multiple appearances in the Scottish Championship pre-dating 2019, when it was agreed on the talk page off FPL that the league was no longer fully professional (see current and established listing at
WP:FPL). Therefore this player comfortably meets
WP:NFOOTBALL, and has an ongoing career. Article needs improving, not deleting - I am sure @
Rusty1111: who edits a lot of QOTS articles can assist with sources. Over 8,000 results on Google.
GiantSnowman19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
There are only two people wishing for it to be kept, on the basis of their opinions about imaginary other criteria rather than if the league is fully professional or not (it isn't). Everyone else there has admitted that the league was never fully professional, including the only contributor with specialist knowledge of Scottish men's football.
Bring back Daz Sampson (
talk)
20:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly, if the only thing that can be written about the subject are a few minor points during the player's history, there's no reason to keep this or any perma-stub. I know that WikiProject Football has an internal agreement that such perma-stubs are acceptable, but we do not keep them in most other projects so we should star clamping down on the sports fields as well.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't see why Leighfield's page is even being considered for deletion, when two players for Queen of the South had pages newly created.
Rusty1111 :
Talk08:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
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 delete. Vote-wise things are quite close but the delete votes are adamant there aren't sources to satisfy gng and the keep votes do nothing to suggest otherwise. GNG is the most important guideline and there is nothing here to indicate any significant coverage.
Fenix down (
talk)
22:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)reply
PROD contested with the wording: "meets NFOOTBALL by playing in the Scottish Championship prior to 2019". The Scottish second tier has never been '
fully professional' per clear consensus on the FPL talk page so this article fails NFOOTY and more importantly fails WP:GNG.
Bring back Daz Sampson (
talk)
19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as per my rationale when contesting the PROD. This player has multiple appearances in the Scottish Championship pre-dating 2019, when it was agreed on the talk page off FPL that the league was no longer fully professional (see current and established listing at
WP:FPL). Therefore this player comfortably meets
WP:NFOOTBALL, and has an ongoing career. Article needs improving, not deleting - I am sure @
Rusty1111: who edits a lot of QOTS articles can assist with sources. Over 8,000 results on Google.
GiantSnowman19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
There are only two people wishing for it to be kept, on the basis of their opinions about imaginary other criteria rather than if the league is fully professional or not (it isn't). Everyone else there has admitted that the league was never fully professional, including the only contributor with specialist knowledge of Scottish men's football.
Bring back Daz Sampson (
talk)
20:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly, if the only thing that can be written about the subject are a few minor points during the player's history, there's no reason to keep this or any perma-stub. I know that WikiProject Football has an internal agreement that such perma-stubs are acceptable, but we do not keep them in most other projects so we should star clamping down on the sports fields as well.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't see why Leighfield's page is even being considered for deletion, when two players for Queen of the South had pages newly created.
Rusty1111 :
Talk08:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
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.