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 - Nabla (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Smith (footballer born September 1985)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nominated again as player has not played in a fully professional league, thus failing notability at WP:Bio#Athletes Jimbo^[online] 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was deleted due to an expired PROD tag. I've restored the article after a user came to me and contested the deletion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ but for completely different reason than the nominator states. This article is a mere directory listing with no encyclopedic content. There do not appear to be any easily found verifiable sources for such required content that I have found. Soccer is not my speciality, so perhaps others can find this information better than I can. For the record, the Fleet does appear to be a fully-professional team, so I think that the subject of this article would pass the notability guideline listed in the nomination as well as the more specific Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, as proposed by the Soccer Wikiproject members. [1]. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my delete recommendation, as the same user who nominated the AfD which was closed as unanimous keep just 2 months ago had apparently made a bad faith nomination here, because he has made a statement that he ought to know is false from the discussion at the first AfD. This should be a Speedy Close as Keep under the snowball clause. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion does provide that an "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed" may be deleted, I don't believe that we can conclude that this is actually the case until users familiar with the subject matter have attempted to find sources. John254 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this article was previously retained due to a unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Smith (footballer born September 1985). Jimbo online, the user responsible for the first AFD nomination, has renominated the article on the same grounds, without addressing the arguments of users at the first AFD discussion who contended that James Smith does play in a fully professional league. John254 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes but since then I have had a number of successful nominations for exactly the same reasons, thought I would re-nominate as this player clearly doesn't meet notability. --Jimbo^[online] 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per first AfD and John254. Giant Snowman 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on closer inspection player fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:ATHLETE only covers "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league", and while Ebbsfleet may be a fully professional club, they are nevertheless a non-league club in a semi-professional competition. PC78 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertions of notability. Article seems of little worth. The previous afd was poorly administrated as the only valid point was the nominators. --neonwhite user page talk 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Athlete. Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N as well! Not a notable sportsperson by any stretch of the imagination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still think the notability criteria are too draconian (70 games for Ebbsfleet - not notable, 1 min for Dagenham - notable) but this fails on WP:RS and WP:V.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per first AfD BanRay 12:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason. --neonwhite user page talk 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. This editor is not required to duplicate content at a referenced project page when they cite it as support for their recommendation. As the previous AfD was unaniomous, it is easy to find the reasons that this editor is apparently citing for the keep recommendation. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. The result of previous afds have no bearing on this one at all. Decisions are not permanent because the notability of an article and it's content can change. In this case the first afd was poorly adminstrated and the closing did not reflect the debate as most of the points were invalid references to a personal essay that is not in any way an excepted guideline for notability. Any questions of notability should be based on the proper guidelines, in this case WP:ATHLETE. Hence the need for a second afd is obvious. See WP:NOTAGAIN for further details. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion --neonwhite user page talk 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Xe did not say "keep because of the outcome of the first AfD", xe said "Keep PER first AfD". This is a reasonable affirmation that this editor agrees with the arguments for keep that were made in the first AfD. Xe is by no means required to reiterate them here, xe can simply reference them the way that people often reference policies, guidelines, and essays. You are simply wrong, so please drop it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN, as i have already pointed out, is considered an arguement to avoid in an afd as is anything that does not eleborate the point. His argument was not helpful and I am merely helping an editor work on afd skills lest their points be forever ignored. Please remember to remain civil in this discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 03:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you very much, but I don't think I need your help here (afd skills? what the hell, guess some people are spending too much time on here). NOTAGAIN might have been applicable had the nominator provided additional reasons to support his position, but the article was renominated on exactly the same basis and I don't feel like wasting my time on copy/pasting others' comments. If you don't like my reasoning, that's fine. BanRay 13:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on your outlook. One could suggest, for instance, that "Article seems of little worth." references no policy grounds under which deletion can be considered as well as introducing unwarranted personal speculation, that telling you to change it is just "helping you improve your AfD skills," and that furthermore WP:NOTAGAIN is a personal essay with zero weight in terms of Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Would you feel that I was being helpful, or that I was patronizing you? RGTraynor 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that Arguements to avoid in afds is an essay but it actually holds considerable weight with regards to afd etiquette and has for some time. Nevertheless, WP:CCC is policy and simply pointing to a previous consensus with no further explainations is not an arguement that is going to be given much weight. --neonwhite user page talk 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is as may be, but there are a limited number of times you can wave WP:NOTAGAIN at the same user in the same debate, when "So what?" is a perfectly valid reaction. That a lot of people buy into that essay doesn't thereby transform it into self-evident Wikipedia policy, and there's a certain irony involved in claiming that to be a meaningful precedent in response to telling User:BanRay that the prior AfD is an invalid precedent. RGTraynor 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Consensus can change, remember this. --Angelo (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. The Keep proponents base their POV on the premise that Smith plays for a fully professional club, but this is what, fifth rung, and that only barely? RGTraynor 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is that strange article title all about? MortimerCat (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Because there is not merely more than one article about a soccer player called James Smith, but more than one born in 1985. RGTraynor 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention they're both English and both play as defenders...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when and if he ever becomes notable. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a directory, this is a directory entry at best. No non-trivial independent sources have been proposed from whihc we could remedy that. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. HornetMike (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2008 (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.