Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Jones (footballer) (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Jones (footballer)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Curtis Jones (footballer) (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)

Contest dePROD: Sir Sputnik nominated PROD. It said: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Please note that the previous AfD was about a different footballer with the same name. HitroMilanese dePRODed. Although I am not sure whether this article passes WP:GNG or not, the player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want him to pass GNG then you need to find refs unrelated to football. Szzuk (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point out the guideline/policy that concurs with what you are saying. Or read the first three paragraphs of Wikipedia:Notability (sports), to know why I am saying what I said. Hitro talk 18:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen any junior footballer fail NFOOTY and remain on WP, they come up regularly and they are always deleted, it is pretty much set in stone that footballers have to play professionally at least once, even a substitutes appearance for 1 second is enough - but they must play. FWIW I'm a fan of LFC, I don't think he will ever make the first team but he will certainly play football professionally. If he does make the first team, great, it will save us millions buying someone! He will get his page in a year or two. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented below with an example about similar case that is in my memory. I maintain PROD log and I have PRODed many such footballers over the years but I do often check for GNG. Exceptions do occur, and I guess this is one of them. FWIW I am a Milan fan, I am hurt since 2005 :p Hitro talk 22:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a Milan fan then you will know Steven Gerrard is a Liverpool legend - the local news will report on him eating a sandwich! He is also Jones direct coach and the press on Jones may in part (or wholly) be attributed to this. It's obvious Gerrard will be the Liverpool coach at some point - hopefully a good one. 2005 was a sensational night, Milan we're the better team and played the better football, football isn't always fair! Szzuk (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole point of football notability guidelines is that not all refs about football players actually show notability. With no refs unrelated to football, we have only routine coverage, and no showing of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's your personal understanding of GNG and NFOOTBALL. Nothing what you are stating is part of notability guidelines. In other words, you are prioritizing profession specific criteria over general notability guidelines, or you are plainly rejecting the existence of GNG . These things are for the guidelines talkpage discussions, not here. Unless, you point out previous outcomes where GNG was not given weight against NFOOTY, or you evidently demonstrate that subject fails on GNG, your rationals are invalid (or atleast not suitable for this AfD). Hitro talk 20:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Of the sources mentioned above:
  1. Sports Illustrated - routine transfer talk, articles that basically report that x signed for y are not generally accepted as indicating notability as these sort of stores exist at many levels if you go local enough in your reporting.
  2. Liverpool Echo 1 - very short article from local news source essentially refactoring a brief comment from the club into a short article.
  3. Liverpool Echo 2 - focus of the article is on a completely different player. Trivial coverage of Jones.
  4. Liverpool Echo 3 - Significant article on the player, but, as with the other 2 Echo articles, seems too local to really be significant coverage.
  5. Liverpool FC - Primary Source not suitable to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, it's not a routine transfer talk. This article is not reporting only that x is signing y. The title of the article clearly explains that writeup is dedicated to the player,'Top Talent' Curtis Jones Set to Sign New Deal With Liverpool After Prospering Under Steven Gerrard. Top Talent should be taken into account, it's not x signing y. And it is seriously not a transfer talk (read the article). If you have link to another Sports Illustrated article about another such footballer, then please link it here.
  2. There is already an internationally published article about the subject on Sports Illustrated. Talking about scope of the reach of the news agency, is either funny or WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IWANTTOHEARYOUSAYIT. I hope you have an idea that Sports Illustrated is an American company, and they spell football as futball or soccer, still they published this article. You are, in fact, discarding a reliable source, just to prove your point.
  3. Yeah. I agree. Even though there is a separate segment about the subject.
  4. Liverpool Echo is a reliable source. If it's significant coverage, then it's a significant coverage. Now what?? That's what is required to build up GNG.
  5. Liverpool FC website is a Primary source??? Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved....... We are not talking about Liverpool FC here.....Your comment signifies that somehow we have to reject this source.Hitro talk 22:45, 8 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curtis_Jones_(footballer)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1209369962"