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. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and consensus seems to be that he also fails WP:GNG. Number 5 7 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Young (footballer)[edit]

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

Article about a player who has not played football at a professional level, references about whom only amount to routine coverage. C 679 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:NFOOTBALL in the strict sense (league-wise), but has 300+ league appearances for one club, Telford,with the majority of these being games in a grey-area league. Also, [1] is not purely routine. He also passes WP:NFOOTBALL: [2] - game against a League 2 team, as were [3] and [4]. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both teams must be from fully-pro leagues. These teams he played against were fully-pro but Telford are not. So he still fails NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say that. He's played 3 professional matches, essentially, there - therefore he passes NFOOTBALL. Besides, NFOOTBALL should be being used to root out people whom have played like 10 games in their entire career, not a stalwart of a team like this. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTBALL says the two ways to qualify are by playing a senior international match, which he clearly fails, and playing in a fully professional league, which he also fails. Not sure how you think playing a cup match indicates NFOOTBALL being met. Further, the over-riding concern is whether he meets the general notability guideline, which would need to be established by multiple independent sources, another thing which has not been indicated. C 679 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cup match thing comes from several AfDs in the past, that have based around cup matches. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're agreeing he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL after all? C 679 21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, no article has ever been kept at AfD on the sole basis of a player having played for a non-professional team against a professional team in the FA Cup. Feel free to prove me wrong, though........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referencing a Japanese second-tier cup match, for which a guy's article was kept (can't remember for the life of me which it was, it was part of a whole host of super-stubs of Japanese players that got AfDed a few months back). I still hold that, even if he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL completely, having 300 league games for a team that plays in a grey-area league should be enough - NFOOTY failure deletions should only be for those whom have played a handful of games altogether. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And GNG failures should be for those who have not been the subject of significant coverage, like the one here. C 679 21:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete - I think I remember the Japanese AfD Lukeno is talking about, but that was kept on the basis that he had played a cup-match between two teams from fully pro league. Normally I would keep players that have played a whole career in a semi-professional league, due to the coverage they've gotten, but I only found this and this in addition to the sources in the article, and that seems be a little short to pass the general notability guideline, so it should probably be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [5][6]. Does that help a bit more towards GNG? They're reprints of other sources, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If Young doesn't qualify per current standards, I think the standard should change. – SJ + 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a great many articles that would disappear if I could rewrite the notability rules to suit my personal preference. Do you have any grounds to Keep based in Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Ravenswing 01:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mentoz86. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not seen the second source I gave after Mentoz's comment? I'm pretty sure there are 2 reliable, non-local sources here to work with - enough for an article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are both reprints, the first one from shropshirestar.com (which is likely the local newspaper, as I found a couple of stories from that sites) and the second one is from the league website (which is not independent of the subject), so I don't think they get Young closer to passing GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VEry dubious -- I do not normally comment on Football, but he has merely played for local clubs, the highest beinbg the Confernece, which is the 5th level of leagues, where clubs are uaually only semi-professional. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [7] - a 3rd piece that isn't totally trivial. The three things I've found, plus a multitude of local sources, should be enough to build an article on surely? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this: [8] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is just a match-report, and doesn't help on GNG. The second one does help towards GNG, but I'm not convinced yet, even though I'm close. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[9] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. Actually there appears to be a real absence of reliable sources covering this individual in significant detail despite your continued efforts to show otherwise. C 679 16:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[10] - there's 3 BBC things here now that aren't one-liners or purely trivial, but have a few paragraphs/sentences... which is enough for GNG. What I find totally absurd is that we would happily keep an article about a guy who played 10 games in League 2 and then disappeared, and yet a player whom has 300 games for one club, over 50 of which were in the Conference National, is looking like his article will be deleted... man, these NFOOTY guidelines are broken. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three BBC things doesn't qualify as multiple sources, just a single source. So we still don't have enough for the GNG. C 679 22:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? 3 completely separate pieces count as one? *scratches head* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." C 679 10:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like everyone is dead set on deletion, despite the fact this player is clearly going to be more notable than many players that are kept for meeting WP:NFOOTY... If 3 BBC pieces, several semi-reliable sources, aren't enough, well... There's another BBC piece that's about someone travelling just to see him play [11], and I found [12][13] as non-local (but not national) coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being "more notable" than other players on Wikipedia is irrelevant, the article here should be kept if it meets GNG, which it looks like it doesn't. Other "less notable" players may be nominated for deletion separately if they have not received significant coverage DESPITE meeting NFOOTBALL, and even be deleted, as has been established in other recent deletion discussions, e.g. Fearghus Bruce. C 679 14:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[14] is something else that isn't a national paper, but isn't purely local either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lukeno94's argument is entirely unpersuasive. The notion that playing a match against a fully professional team constitutes "playing professionally" is absurd: I could, with equal justification, claim that the members of the Northeastern University Huskies baseball team are notable because they play a match against the Boston Red Sox each spring. Ravenswing 01:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Setanta still existed, then I could provide more sources on this guy; sadly, they don't, their website is offline (for all intents and purposes) and wayback machines are only useful when you actually know what to find. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 26 March 2013 (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.