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. Some coverage, some notability, some people saying this is enough for GNG, others saying it is not. AfD has been open for more than a month and I just don't see where a genuine consensus is going to come from here, at least this time around Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Robbins (footballer)[edit]

Ryan Robbins (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13], among many more British sources. Clearly significant figure in English non league football who has played and scored for his national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources above do not demonstrate notability. 1 is a quote-heavy routine match recap with barely 2 sentences on the subject, N. 2 is a WordPress blog, N. 3 is a non-independent (NPL) routine transaction announcement, N. 4 is routine news with zero independent sentences on Robbins, N. 5 is quote-heavy routine transactional news, N. 6 is a routine match summary on what appears to be a UGS, N. 7 is quote-heavy routine transaction buzz, N. 8 is quote-heavy routine transaction buzz, N. 9 is has essentially zero independent coverage of Robbins, N. 10 is routine transaction coverage, N. 11 is more routine transaction news, N. 12, ditto, N. 13, ditto, N. Stop ref-bombing garbage sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG with significant sources, disagree with the analysis of references above from biased user.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak keep there is enough from Das osmnezz to show a clear pass of WP:GNG. Particularly the sources which JoelleJay incorrectly dismisses as "routine" transaction news actually contain several paragraphs of accomplishments (7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13) Y. Further, 7 is and 8 are incorrectly dismissed as being "quote-heavy" despite only having quotes in parts of (#7) 3 of 7 paragraphs and (#8) 6 of 14 paragraphs. Frank Anchor 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling single sentences "paragraphs" is blatant misrepresentation of the amount of coverage. I miscategorized #8 as transactional, but it is still most certainly quote-heavy and not significant. Routine transaction coverage is the formulaic "player has signed a contract with team, these are the teams he played with before, these are some accomplishments, here are some quotes from player/coach about how excited they are, info on the club's schedule/history" that is produced for every transactional change. It does not contribute to GNG.

  
  

  • 7, from Eastern Daily Press, has 3 sentences of primary transaction buzz containing barely any info on Robbins:

    Gary Setchell is backing electric frontman Ryan Robbins to become a fans' favourite at King's Lynn Town.
    ...convincing the 25-year-old to leave Coalville Town...
    Rumours have been rife for weeks that Robbins was heading to Norfolk, despite his run-ins with Linnets supporters – especially online...

  Followed by 7 sentences of direct quotes from Setchell, then a final brief sentence of routine transaction material (listing some of Robbins' history). That is exactly what routine transaction news looks like. Absolutely not SIGCOV.

  • 8, from Stamford Mercury, starts with 3 sentences announcing his contract with Evo-Stik and some stats from his past season at Stamford. Then it's a 3-sentence quote from Robbins, a 3-sentence quote from the Stamford manager, then 2.5 sentences mentioning his playing for Stamford and St K&N and his upcoming schedule of WC qualifiers. Then 5 more sentences of quotes from Robbins followed by one sentence telling us he's flying out to training camp "next Sunday". This is a small-town interview of a local footballer that amounts to <6 sentences of coverage, several of them not even of encyclopedic material (like his flights and future matches).
  • 10, from Northamptonshire Telegraph, begins with 3 sentences of routine transaction material announcing Robbin's signing, plugging an upcoming local game, mentioning Robbins had played with Corby before, and listing his former teams. The next 4 sentences have nothing to do with Robbins, then there's the sentence Robbins joins other recent arrivals Alistair Worby and Robbie Parsons at Steel Park, then 2 more sentences unrelated to Robbins. Not SIGCOV.
  • 11, from Eastern Daily Press, announces the King's Lynn contract fell through and contains 9 sentences describing/quoting the coach's reaction. It has 1 sentence stating where Robbins is now likely to play and 1 sentence repeating that he scored 34 goals the previous season. Nowhere close to SIGCOV.
  • 12, from Hinckley Times, is another announcement that Robbins isn't joining the Linnets. Sentence 1 is a bird pun, 2 states Robbins fell out with King's Lynn and joined Barwell instead, 3 & 4 mention this was because of cyberbullying from Lynn fans, the last 3 are basically quotes.
  • 13, from Lincolnshire World, announces Robbins has signed with Boston United. It starts with straight primary reporting of what Robbins/the club had said, a plug about the match he might play in "tomorrow", more repeating of what Robbins/Stamford "felt", 5 sentences of other Stamford club news, and 5 sentences of the usual transaction stats (when he joined Stamford, how he did in the prior 2 seasons, and his capping during St K&N WC qualifiers). This piece also appears to be plagiarized from a Stamford Mercury article so should not be considered reliable anyway.[14] JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modified per JoelleJay’s comments below. Frank Anchor 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have read through the given references and they are not SIGCOV. They do not provide enough information to write an entire biography about the subject. Carpimaps (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just finished about two hours of going through the additional references provided above and I conclude that they demonstrate sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish notability satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. If the subject wasn’t notable, then deletion could be considered. However, as other editors and I myself have explained, the subject is notable and thus the article shouldn’t be considered eligible for deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Shawn Teller, which sources do you think are SIGCOV and do not fall under routine sports news? JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After spending more time than I planned going through the sources mentioned above, I conclude that there isn't significant coverage available. Essentially all of the sources above are routine coverage (typically from a small newspaper located in the town where he played club football) announcing his signing, his manager's/club's plans for his future, but very rarely describing his accomplishments or what might make him notable. Although he may have scored a goal for his national team, I don't think that's a claim to notability unless media sources acknowledge it as one (particularly beyond his own club's hometown paper). Jogurney (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's near impossible for players from smaller countries to get on here due to St. Kitts having 2 whole newspapers and nobody else who is willing to cover them. He played for the national team and played in other countries as well.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: so if he "played for other countries as well", why isn't there substantial coverage? Supposedly those other countries would have more than 2 newspapers... --Randykitty (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that that country is England as well which has no shortage in football coverage at all levels. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have just spent an hour and a half doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Article expansion is 100% irrelevant if no GNG sources have been identified. That just means you've filled the article with trivial routine details that do not belong in an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have said before, other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the 13+ sources do not provide IRS SIGCOV, as shown in the keep votes above (which outnumber the delete votes). Also, WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". It's fine, we can agree to disagree. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I'd say we should keep this partially per WP:BIAS (St. Kitts and the Nevis barely has anybody with articles), partially as a pass of NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), and because as shown by the expansion, we clearly have enough material to write a biography on this player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think BIAS is applicable here. Other footballers who represent St. Kitts and play semi-pro club football in England have more comprehensive coverage (look at Harry Panayiotou who has received much more coverage than Robbins, such as [15] or [16]). If Robbins had a higher profile (or played at least a bit of fully-pro club football), I'm sure we would see more significant online coverage. I don't believe Das osmnezz's article expansion demonstrates that the GNG is met either. Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are not the required multiple pieces of SIGCOV to meet GNG. The sources are routine match recaps or transactional announcements, which do not contribute to NBASIC. This shows in the article based on them that is filled with minutiae around signings, penalty card counting, and goal (re)counting. 2A02:8308:30D:5000:10CD:DAF0:2B6F:FA85 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC) — 2A02:8308:30D:5000:10CD:DAF0:2B6F:FA85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I find it very odd and convenient that the only Wikipedia contribution by your IP address account is just specifically for this deletion discussion... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second @Das osmnezz:

The circumstances of this vote (IP, first edit) should be taken into account when determining consensus in this discussion. Shawn Teller (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : as per others above Christopheronthemove (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC) — Christopheronthemove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I don’t think the SPA tag is appropriate for this vote. The editor has made many other edits outside of this deletion discussion. Shawn Teller (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They're a 1-day-old account that has made edits almost exclusively to deletion discussions/AfD'd articles. JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also don’t find this SPA tag appropriate as the user has commented on a wide array of AFDs, so I am striking it. I do find jumping into AFDs as a new account to be unusual (but not in the scope of WP:SPA), but it is possible the user created a new account for legitimate purposes (e.g. forgot password). Frank Anchor 13:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Shawn Teller and JoelleJay; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehowahyereh. Akevsharma (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I added SPA tags to the two above accounts, although I'll note the IP is dynamic so might have contributed elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No one has demonstrated how the coverage here, which stems exclusively from reporting on transaction announcements, actually goes beyond the routine material from local outlets expected for players at this level. Transactional coverage falls under NOTNEWS: routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage and is additionally described in ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. ... Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc.

  Sports orgs distribute announcements of transfers, injuries, etc. to the media (via press releases containing player stats and history, press conferences, and interviews) with the express purpose of promoting their players/clubs. If such material was acceptable for establishing GNG/BASIC, players with signings, transfers, and injuries in non-FPL leagues would always have warranted a page (potentially without ever even playing a match!) under NFOOTY, which was supposed to be calibrated to (a very weak version of) GNG. And yet some of the same editors advocating to keep here regularly !voted to delete such players under that regime. NSPORT2022 didn't change GNG, so why are the routine transactional announcements dismissed[17] for so long by NFOOTY now suddenly evidence of GNG?

  As an aside, all the non-quoted content in #8 is actually identical to the routine contract announcement published in the same small-town paper by their dedicated Stamford AFC reporter 9 days earlier (itself derived from whichever statement released by delighted Daniels official prompted this announcement from Evo-Stik), so it actually does fall under transactional news. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for bringing this up, as it makes me reconsider my assertions above. Frank Anchor 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This BLP is exclusively a list of routine sporting transactions, cited exclusively with routine sporting news. The only information we get about the person comes in a single interview. For whatever reason, users may cast wild and unfortunate aspersions against User:JoelleJay and her source analysis, but nobody in this process has successfully challenged her assertions. BusterD (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "The only information we get about the person comes in a single interview"... clearly based on the page there is a decent amount of information about the person that comes from a variety of different sources (after I literally spent an couple hours doing WP:HEY and vastly expanding this article), many of which are not just routine sporting transactions. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant there is a large quantity of routine sporting news, but no quality sources. It's just "Robbins starts", "Robbins leaves", "Robbins plays", "Robbins says". Nowhere applied do we find out anything about this living person subject except sports but for the interviews. Nobody has directly detailed this subject, so it still fails the new SNG, which requires at least one SIGCOV, and I'm not seeing it applied. I'm quite unhappy about folks disparaging User:JoelleJay and their assertions here, which seem to my eyes totally correct assessments. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the posted sources above establish notability. I disagree with JoelleJay’s analysis of the sources no matter how much WP:BLUDGEONing this user does to try to get their point across. I agree with Frank Anchor’s above analysis of the sources presented by Das osmnezz in that there is enough significant coverage to slightly pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Users should focus their attention on the subject under discussion, not those discussing. As of this datestamp, JoelleJay has made seven edits to this process, two to point out clear SPAs, three to give source analyses. I know using the word "bludgeoning" has become trendy in these procedures, but JoelleJay is not guilty of bludgeoning anything. I regard such unsupported characterizations without evidence as personal attack. The other two leading contributors are User:Das osmnezz with nine edits (mostly presenting and discussing new sources), and User:Frank Anchor with 8 (who has softened their keep after paying attention to JoelleJay's assertions). Let's discuss the footballer, and not the good faith edits of our fellows. Nobody in this discussion is out of line, yet. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The linked essay above defines bludgeoning as “ where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.” which is exactly what JoelleJay has done based on the repetitive WP:WALLSOFTEXT this user has added after any user disagrees with them. I apologize if other people find that term to have a more negative connotation than I believe it does. I also find it quite odd that BusterD wants to go back to discussing the topic of the AFD rather than the participants in the discussion and then goes on to, without evidence, accuse myself and other users of “disparaging” JoelleJay and making “personal attacks.” So which way do you want it to go, Buster? Carson Wentz (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also read your comment as undue. A gentle reminder to WP:AGF of discussion participants. Suriname0 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes notability per sources. Shotgun pete (talk) 24:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoelleJay's source analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most sources are routine transactional news or run-of-the-mill details and do not count towards GNG. Avilich (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the 13+ sources are all "routine transactional news or run-of-the-mill details", as shown in the keep votes above (which outnumber the delete votes). Many of the sources go into his background. Also, WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". It's fine, we can agree to disagree. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find it odd how people work to each source and not the overall picture of sources, combined they do build a picture for WP:BASIC. No one has done a complete source breakdown either, there are currently over 30 sources in the article which does form the basis of what is needed, there are a lot worse articles out there which are kept with just three sources. If the deletionists are going with source analysis, then they need to do a proper job, because what I see above isn't good enough. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2023 (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.