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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lennon[edit]

Gordon Lennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Semi-professional footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Article only created following media coverage of his death, which falls under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS. Prod removed without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is the appropriate? Can't we close the nom and re-open this in a week or so's time? It seems entirely insensitive to have a 'this article is nominated for deletion' banner at the top of a person's entry after he has just died. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree with Pretty Green, seems a little insensitive. Are we sure the Scottish 3rd division is not fully professional? It is listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues#Football:_Association_Football as a professional league. p.s. how do i name and date these submissions like everyone else?
  • The Scottish Third Division is not fully professional - only the SPL and the First Division are - its inclusion on that list is a mistake - see WP:FPL. You can sign your posts using ~~~~. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ridiculous this has an AFD. Dumbarton are notable if you know anything about Scottish football, 2 times Scottish Championship - Has also played in 2nd division. Has a BBC entry - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8089017.stm --Roadblocker (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please familiarise yourself with WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTNEWS. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am familiar with those policies, thank you very much! He has also been signed by 1st division team Partick thistle, even though he did not play. Lennon is notable for a variety of reasons, as is Dumbarton. He has a BBC entry - How much more notable do you really want?--Roadblocker (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are familiar with them, why are you trying to claim that playing for a semi-professional club that last won the championship in 1892, or the fact that he never played for a club in a fully professional league (Partick), makes him notable? The fact that he has a BBC article about his death is covered by WP:ONEEVENT ("The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry."). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dumbarton FC are notable, even if they are semi-pro these days. He has several articles on other site, not just his death, Respected newspapers and more from the BBC. --Roadblocker (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, Dumbarton are notable, but their players are not unless they have played for a club in a higher division; that's why WP:ATHLETE exists. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Gordon Lennon just not has articles on his death, as people would like to think on AFD. As I mentioned before he has featured in articles in respected newspapers and more from the BBC.. If this deletion gets passed I will have to think twice about contributing to wikipedia. An utter shambles. And not to mention the idiotic AFD policies. --Roadblocker (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete typical case of WP:RECENTISM about a non-notable footballer who never played in a fully professional league. And I am sorry but the fact he died at 26 does not make him notable (WP:ONEEVENT applies, as noted above). --Angelo (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:ATHLETE is supplemental to the GNG, not a replacement for it. Multiple items of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources exist, so the level he played at is irrelevant. That the article was created in response to a particular event does not imply that the subject is notable only for that event. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you say where these sources are? I see one BBC article about his death and one local newspaper article (from the kind of paper which you could get articles on players in the 9th level of English football). The others are either the websites of clubs that he played for, or a tribute website where anyone can upload a story. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted". This is what WP:ONEEVENT says. I don't see any evidence of this person being not low profile before his death, do you? --Angelo (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five seconds Googling resulted in a non-trivial (actually considerably in-depth) article on his signing for Thistle in the Evening Times, which while not a national paper is wider-scoped than is normally considered "local media". Whether or not he actually played for the first team is a bit of a red herring in that instance, because the purpose of checking if he's played or not is to establish whether it's likely that he's received any significant coverage and not the other way around. I'll add it to the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it so in-depth? This is a regional minor paper article merely covering his signing, citing a couple words from his boss, and that's all. To me it easily fails WP:RS and does not add any notability. --Angelo (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Evening Times is not a "regional minor paper". It has wider circulation than the Sunday Herald, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) OK, so now we have two national/regional news stories (three if you count this); two about him signing for a club he never played for, and one about his death. Does this really make him notable? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wouldn't that Evening Times article fail WP:SPECULATION anyway as it's based on the fact he could perhaps be a half-decent player in the future? --Jimbo^[online] 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, because the source is doing the speculating and not us. Sports journalism counts as "credible research" for the purpose of #3 of WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is merely your opinion. I think the sentence you're referring to is the following one: "of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not." . Explain me how a non-league footballer can fit within it, because I really can't understand your point. I don't think an article about a non-league or a youth footballer claimed as "promising" by a bunch of sports journalists can be defined a "credible research that embodies predictions". --Angelo (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • So far as sports personalities are concerned, professional sports writers are one of the few available types of reliable secondary sources. You can keep gainsaying if you want, but I don't see that there's much to argue with on that particular point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The article seems based on hear say. He doesn't mention that he has actually seen him play, so what is he basing this prediction on? --Jimbo^[online] 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not for us to question the veracity of sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sports writers only express their own point of view, which is non-neutral by definition. Credible researches should be based on facts rather than personal opinions. --Angelo (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has played in cup against top flight opposition. Just last year he played against a top flight club in the Scottish League cup. Played against second tier, fully professional sides here and here. Spent five months at a second tier club, where just coming off the bench once would have made him 'notable'. Had BBC stories written about him whilst he was alive: here and here. Not to mention him being a club captain at a club that were twice champions of Scotland, leading them to the Third Division league title. All that without mentioning his death, which is in the top ten most read stories of the international BBC news website and is currently the #1 most read story of the UK BBC news site.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he has played against fully professional clubs in the cup, but not for one. This is why he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Playing against a top-tier team in a tournament could well be taken as competing "at the fully professional level of a sport" as well. IIRC the reason WP:ATHLETE consists of a whole two lines is precisely because firmer guidelines were rejected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it couldn't, by any means, because the team he played for is not fully professional. If he had played for Partick in the cup, that might have been the case, but he didn't. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, I think this is possibly a case of ignore all rules. A tragic death of a (successful) club captain is an important event in the club's history. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article should not be deleted. Although he did not play in a professional league he did play in a professional cup competition and against professional opposition see here. Also he is a footballer who has died whilst still playing which sadly makes the article notable. Johnelwaq (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but as has been explained already, playing again fully professional opposition when you are not fully professional does not confer notability per WP:ATHLETE. And no, dying whilst of playing age does not make a semi-profressional footballer notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quite clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Sources provided fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM. Being a club captain doesn't make you any more notable than anyone else, everbody lives and dies. --Jimbo^[online] 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from failing WP:ATHLETE, he sadly didn't acheive anything notable in his career. The only comparison in this field is Marc Burrows who was also a semi-pro who died young, the only difference being he actually did acheive something to make him notable - in the absence of professional appearances, something like this is needed to establish notability. It is always regrettable when a player dies, but a few newspaper articles briefly covering this event really isn't enough. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 19:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ATHLETE says nothing about "notable achievements"; furthermore, as I've argued on WT:FOOTY#Gordon Lennon, it is fairly ridiculous that WP:ATHLETE is being used here as a binary value where a player is simply not notable for football at all should he have not made an appearance professionally, such that any non-footballing event would be counted as "notable for one event". In reality, people are not notable either as one thing or the other - amateur or semi-pro players with other notable aspects to their lives should have some weight on their footballing activities even if they're not defined exclusively by them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say anything about WP:ATHLETE mentioning notable acheivements, I said he fails WP:ATHLETE and he acheived nothing of note. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It might be only one event but it's a pretty significant event. Mark Chapman only had one event by shooting John Lennon but that was a pretty significant event. Should his entry be deleted under WP:ONEEVENT then ?--Rcclh (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all the due respect, he did not kill a famous rockstar, he died in a car crash like thousand of other ordinary people in the Western world. Sad but true. --Angelo (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. However, "thousand of other ordinary people in the Western world" don't get extensive media coverage in that event, nor did they have professional contracts with football clubs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if you watch the Italian national TV news, you can see news reports about men and women dying at car accidents in an almost-daily basis, but I don't think they are notable only because of that. Sources for them? I can provide them, of course, and no, they're not famous people. Sorry, but this claim of yours is absolutely untrue. --Angelo (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. In this case, reference needs to be made to WP:NEWSBRIEF. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Obviously(212.22.3.8 (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete No substantial arguments have been presented that counter WP:ATHLETE, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Eusebeus (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur that the individual does not meet inclusion guidelines spelled out @ WP:ATHLETE & WP:ONEEVENT. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per notable career, per other keep sayers.--Judo112 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep career seems notable in the scottland and i dont see any reason for deletion. good sourcing to.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a player whose career highpoint was the championship of a non-professional league where the average crowd is about 500 is not notable, and he seems to have received no substantial coverage other than for dying -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to me that the arguements against keeping (i.e. that he has not played at a high enough level) are discredited by the fact that he has died before he has been able to prove that he could have played at a higher level. Darryl.matheson (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your claims of "he has died before he has been able to prove that he could have played at a higher level" is exactly what WP:CRYSTAL says - what you say is just unverifiable. --Angelo (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it doesn't. It's stated that he was a promising player in the sources (indeed, one consists almost entirely of such discussion); #3 of WP:CRYSTAL allows for the detailing of speculation so long as it's in the form of "credible research" from a reliable source and not the personal interpretation of a WP editor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Like mentioned by Angelo, I don't feel future speculation is enough to lend notability. While yes it is indeed very tragic that this athlete died at such a young age, a young death doesn't make someone inherently notable. To me, that is like saying any time a child dies, they are notable because they "had a bright future". Tragic? Yes. Notable? Not as much. However, I'm abstaining on a vote to keep or delete. I am admittedly not as familiar with the various football leagues of the UK as I could be. →^Jog_Con← 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons that EchetusXe stated. Also, the fact that he was the captain of the side should make a difference to his notability, as compared to merely a backup player. CanaryOJ (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any reason why being captain of a team would confer extra notability. Being captain is not an especially significant role really -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this guy was so famous, why is it that his death was the only thing that instigated the creation of a Wikipedia article on him? Just because he got some news coverage, including coverage on the BBC News website, doesn't mean he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, as per the notability guidelines. It's real sad and all that he had the potential to become more notable, but at the time he died he wasn't a person of note. MaxCosta (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That isn't a valid reason. I've created articles on former players after their deaths were reported (eg 1). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Our coverage of living players is hardly complete; it is obvious that any media coverage of a player is likely to spur on the creation of an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Captain of a championship winning Scottish Senior league side, and his death has resulted in quite a fair amount of media coverage. Bully Wee (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Receiving coverage only for dying is a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also find the timing of this attempted deletion highly insensitive. 8lgm (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not important; hardly anyone knows about him; makes great source of info about him (life and death) KSWarrior8 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely that is a rationale for deleting the article, not keeping it? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Hard to articulate my reasoning but I feel a combination of things means he should just about scrape it. He has a decent length career in the Scottish League (although semi-professional, it's not non-league as has been stated), he was a club captain (which makes him a big part of the club) received minor coverage before his death, and a lot afterward. A guy who made one appearance for a lowly League Two club would be notable as per WP:ATHLETE but another who had a 20 year career in the division below would not be? There seems to be very little leeway in that guideline and perhaps it should not be such a black and white rule. 81.96.65.76 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He may not completely satisfy the guidelines but he was club captain of a notable club and his death earned considerable press coverage. There are infinitely less notable players who do satisfy the guidelines, and therefore I believe those guidelines should occasionally be stretched to include players like Lennon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2009 (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.