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 Keep Consensus is that this article meets WP:GNG.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Andy Cook (footballer born 1990)[edit]

Andy Cook (footballer born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was recently under AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer born 1990) and closed as keep. However, following concerns about participation in the original AfD and this conversation with the closing admin, it is suggested that the article is re-listed to gain an representative discussion. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1fent 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the keep !votes in the previous discussion weren't policy-based. The player hasn't played in a fully professional league, nor has he received significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP:Are we going to keep doing this until the article is deleted? The result was keep, down to the votes cast last time. I suggest you read the original deletion discussion and copy and paste them into this one. There were some valid points made to keep this article in the last discussion, I solely think because the user who sought deletion in the first place didn't succeed in getting the article removed he is going to keep nominating it until the article goes. Sounds a tad unfair to me seeing as we have already voted, however I am fully aware that the player currently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, however at the rate of growth of this article how long will it be before it passes WP:GNG. As another user mentioned in the previous discussion why should this article suffer when the likes of Richard Brodie are kept. Footballgy (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) I nominated it this time because I was unconvinced by the close - someone else nominated it last time. (2) The result was keep, but if you actually read the conversation with the closing admin you will see that they share some of my reservations about that result. (3) If you admit that the player currently fails NFOOTY and GNG why on earth are you !voting "Keep"? Wouldn't it be better to userfy the article until the player actually does pass those guidelines? (4) Mentioning other articles that may have the same problem is not a valid rationale; if those articles do fail GNG etc. then they should also be nominated. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do pass GNG now, as they were given sufficient time to expand. As I have also mentioned before, I have always felt a notability review should possibly come up for discussion amongst the relevant Wikipedians, as the fifth tier of English football is all but a professional league of mostly pro clubs, with 95% pro players on pro contracts. User's such as myself would have an absolute field day creating new article's which in the long run would easily pass GNG if allowed to. That's just my opinion, I'm not rebelling against the guidelines, I just feel too many article's are swiftly gunned down before they are given relevant time to grow into notability. It's unlikely that Cook will play in the Football League this year (despite being recently pro contracted to a FL team), however he is a pro at a pro club, and GNG notability will no doubt be reached if the article isn't hastily gunned down like a lot are. Footballgy (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For info, the overall proportion of full-time professionals in the Conference National is nowhere near 95% -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY could be a case of WP:TOOSOON the article can be recreated when he passes the guidelines which won't be anytime soon.Seasider91 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user Footballgy the BSB prem is a league full of former league teams with many a professional player and full time managers at pretty much every club.Seasider91 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I won't be voting to Keep or Delete this time, I spent probally 10 hours+ of my time looking for info and citations to expand this article, one thing I have learned is I will NEVER again contribute to any football articles again, until I am certain in my own mind it wont get deleted like this one and the others which will now be found. Nelly_1975 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like setting up self-fulfilling prophesies to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect- To Grimsby Town F.C.; since the title is unlikely to be preempted by anyone else, redirect until he meets guidelines, unless an involved editor requests userfication. Dru of Id (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as the original nominator. I agree entirely with the renomination. Given the level of participation and the arguments made by each side, it was procedurally incorrect to close. That being said. I am now satisfied that the article now meets the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: as per last conversation. FishyPhotos (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I must say I had a bad gutfeeling when I saw the previous AfD closed as keep, with 3 possible meatpuppets voting KEEP without any good reason to keep. But after reading through the article I'm confident that this article now passes WP:GNG, even though it fails WP:NFOOTY. I would encourage the closing admin to read through the previous AfD, as this is more or less just a relist of the previous discussion. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Sir Sputnik and Mentoz8; the article now appears to pass WP:GNG with sources like [1], [2] and [3]. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets and passes the WP:GNG. Let's not fall into the trap of saying 'it fails the specific guideline so let's not bother with the general one". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 25 June 2012 (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.