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 is the age-old tale of the feud between the GNG and the SNGs, and we will not settle that score today. While ordinarily a SNG's presumption can be rebutted by showing that the GNG is not met, there is also no consensus here about that, because people disagree about whether the person's media coverage meets the GNG's requirements. Sandstein 20:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Claver[edit]

Cody Claver (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)

Not notable. This 22-year-old football player has appeared in a game twice, for the football team SC Cambuur, a second-tier team (albeit professional). The player current plays for Amsterdamsche FC, a third-tier team (semi-professional). He has scored no goals. The only sources cited are Soccerway and WorldFootball.net, which are statistics aggregating websites. Coverage in Dutch media is routine, mostly only because he was recently transferred. Though this article technically meets the requirements of WP:NFOOTY, that guideline says "presumed notable" or "generally regarded as notable", but doesn't say must be notable. The subject of this article–a minor player on a minor team–is not notable and should not have an encyclopedia article. ^Leviv_ich 17:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Leviv_ich 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^Leviv_ich 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^Leviv_ich 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^Leviv_ich 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, despite knowing the outcome, fully well.∯WBG^converse 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Claver passes WP:NFOOTY easily and that is the end of the matter.Dougal18 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. There are plenty of other sources out there - 1, 2 etc. (probably needs a Dutch speaker to find the useful ones) - but has nominator complied with WP:BEFORE? Doubtful, especially given that they've got the number of games played wrong... GiantSnowman 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  GiantSnowman, of course I did. Games played was taken from the article; I see you’ve updated it now to four games played instead of two. Is that what makes the difference between this being a keep or delete? As for media coverage, I addressed that in the nom: it’s routine coverage mostly of his recent transfer and his signing a few years back, such as the two links you posted. Nothing significant that I can find. Got any other links? ^Leviv_ich 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added more sourcing, including significant coverage in the LC. GiantSnowman 11:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep thanks to GiantSnowman's source update - he clearly passes WP:NFOOTY and there's enough information out there (looks like it's all in Dutch) to improve the article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful keep. NFOOTY and several other SNGs really need a major overhaul but, as the guidance stands, this passes. It's ridiculous, but it is what it is. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY having played in a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For reasons mentioned above, namely that the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL. R96Skinner (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who made two appearances (a total of 55 minutes of play) with a fully-pro club. The article barely scrapes through the presumption of notability at NFOOTBALL, but as previous consensus has shown barely passing that bar is not enough especially when the GNG is not met (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). Although the single article on his professional debut at Cambuur (in LC) is significant coverage from a reliable, secondary source, nothing else online appears to meet that requirement. There are several articles published by his employers (Cambuur and AFC) which I don't believe are secondary sources, and a handful of name drops in transfer news and match reports on various blogs, etc. I can't see how this article satisfies the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NFOOTY is so damn laughable. There are so many thousands of people who have ever played football and assuming notability is preposterous. Playing two games for a second-tier team does not make you notable, and routine data of statistics and team trades is not substantive coverage per GNG. This circular reasoning that someone is notable because other people are notable must stop. A "presumption" of notability assumes that substantial sources are available but that is not always the case. Reywas92^Talk 23:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as others have pointed out. Smartyllama (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I have a question for editors arguing that NFOOTBALL is met (especially editors who argued similar articles did not meet NFOOTBALL in the many AfDs I linked above): Why are we ignoring the prior consensus established through dozens of earlier AfDs? Am I missing something here? Jogurney (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking through those articles, half of them actually didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, which this guy does, and the other half are years old. They're totally irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first AfD like this I remember was for Cosmos Munegabe (which is certainly from many years ago), an article which clearly met the minimum bar for NFOOTBALL's presumption of notability. There have been a series of similar AfDs I'm aware of over the past several years (I cut and pasted the list above from another experience WP:FOOTY editor's post). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauver Aranha Pinheiro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rufus Omotayo Omoseyin are more recent examples if you think we should ignore the older ones (though I have no idea why we would). I haven't edited here in recent months as much as I did in the past, so other WP:FOOTY editors probably know of many more recent AfDs that illustrate the same principle than I do. Jogurney (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:NFOOTY is clearly met. In terms of GNG, I voted delete for Pinheiro because I could find absolutely nothing on him in Croatian media apart from his 20 minutes on the pitch, and while I voted keep for Omoseyin we couldn't actually verify his participation. Claver has been written about by Dutch press apart, interviewed on YouTube, et cetera. For instance, this is routine and doesn't count toward WP:GNG, but it demonstrates he's clearly been discussed in the media: [1]. I think GNG is probably satisfied through other articles, but is still exactly the type of coverage WP:NFOOTY assumes exists for notable players. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We need to stop scapping the bottom of the barrle. @ appearances with 55 minutes of play in fully professional play is ludicorously below any reasonable standard for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe we need to have a conversation about how accommodating WP:NFOOTBALL is first, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)? You could probably purge a good number of articles based on the nominator's rationale alone. Jay eyem (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's necessary. As I mentioned above, we have routinely deleted articles on the grounds presented by the nominator. I think this is another of those cases, but I see that others believe the sources must exist to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yes, possibly futile, at this time, but consensus changes. Routine coverage. Is that for real, 55 minutes of play time gets an article? Is the bar for NSPORT and/or footy so low to allow such non-notable subjects an article, just from being on a roster or playing a few minutes of a game? That is astounding. Not everything that has some sources are notable for an article. At least there is "some sources" here as opposed to the many sourced only from the external links section using only football rosters. Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, Moonlight Graham passes WP:GNG. But the SNG assumes you receive coverage if you've played in a fully pro league, as fully professional leagues receive consistent press coverage. Obviously it's rebuttable, some players don't get written about, but Claver has. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Every professional athlete gets an article about their professional debut like this one by LC [2]. Every player who leaves a team gets a farewell message on the team's website like this three-sentence goodbye from 2nd-tier pro team Cambuur [3]. Every player who signs with a team gets a blurb like this [4] (four and a half sentences, one of which states that he had little playing time at Cambuur) and an announcement/profile/interview on the new team's website like this one from 3rd-tier semi-pro AFC [5] (in which he says he will look for a job now that he has more time in a lower-tier league, and in which he is asked "Did you give up your hopes for a professional career?"... sounds notable). This is all routine coverage. Only two of these sources are independent, and only one of them is (arguably) significant coverage, so I don't see GNG being met in this case. None of these articles conveys that he is a notable footballer. Is every professional footballer notable enough to be in the encyclopedia? Levivich 05:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer to "is every professional footballer notable enough to be in the encyclopedia" is yes, generally, as long as the league they play in is fully professional, because such a player will almost certainly receive press coverage like Claver. Claver also has mentions like [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. SportingFlyer T·C 05:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If notability is based solely on media coverage, then what is the difference between fame and notability? What's the difference between an encyclopedia that has an article on every pro footballer and a football almanac? Levivich 05:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG has always been predicated on reliable secondary sources. Notablity is "less than" fame - you don't have to be famous to be in the encyclopedia, but you do need to be covered by reliable secondary sources. Some professional football players are not, as noted above. Claver is. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or primary. WP:NFOOTY is, sadly, a discredited guideline, and in this case it's too far off the mark in meeting encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2019 (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.