Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum McCowatt (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is this player just about meets GNG. The delete arguments do not sufficiently explain why the sources provided don't meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Callum McCowatt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and doesn't met WP:GNG. Case of to soon, as while signed a professional contract, they haven't played a professional game. Can go to sandbox in hope he gets a game later this year. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 19:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 19:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 19:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think there is enough sourcing out there to meet WP:GNG like [1], [2], and lots of coverage in Stuff.co.nz [3] [4] [5] [6]. Also, this isn't the reason for my vote, but I think he might meet NFOOTY based on 7 international cup games [7]. – Levivich 21:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the news articles are basically the same thing because he had a good year playing in NZ national league which doesn't met WP:NFOOTY itself and about him signing for the professional team. It's not really a history of WP:GNG but all pretty recent about those events. Also as mentioned, those cap games are youth internationals, which don't met WP:NFOOTY either. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misreading it but Soccerway says he started for Auckland City FC in the 2017 FIFA Club World Cup [8], in a 6 Dec 2017 play-off game against Al Jazira FC [9], and had six games in the 2018 OFC Champions League [10], such as this start in the quarter-finals and this start in the semi-finals. These are youth games? They don't count for WP:NFOOTY#1? – Levivich 03:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry thought you were talking about his Youth World Cup games. Yes those games would count if played between two professional clubs but Auckland City isn't a professional club so those appearances don't count as a professional appearance. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t that NFOOTY 2 that requires fully-pro leagues/teams, not NFOOTY 1? I thought OFC and FIFA Club World Cup count as "competitive senior international match at confederation level". – Levivich 13:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think so, that's talking about international teams, club teams can't have their 1 FIFA matches. Club World Cup for most teams would be fine because the teams are professional, just auckland Coty isn't. OFC Championship isn't because all the teams that play it are amateur teams. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 18:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth international games do not count towards football notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sorry, missed the sources found by Levivich (particularly the NZ Herald piece) - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 08:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, and probably will pass the (less important) NFOOTY yardstick as well soon enough (NFOOTY seems to exclude top prospects, as well as the more notable players in the semi-pros (particularly in countries where the top league is semi-pro) - despite often meeting GNG - while including every last player in barely professional leagues (which do not meet GNG)) - in this case this individual has quite a bit of coverage (being seen as a rising star, credited for significant contributions in his team winning the championship - NZ Herald) and is now signed by a FPL-team (season starts in October). Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very clearly meets GNG with references provided above. I didn't bother voting as it was approaching WP:SNOW already with the weight of the arguments. I'm not sure why ~~User:Icewhiz~~ User:Just Chilling didn't close this based on the overwhelming weight of the arguments from what I can see. ~~Icewhiz~~ Just Chilling, is there something in the delete argument that I"m failing to see - User:Johnpacklambert didn't address the GNG claims at all, and User:Simione001 doesn't explain why any of these references that most accept as GNG aren't good enough. Nfitz (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was at 3 Delete vs 3 Keep when I !voted.... So a snow close would'vw been quite iffy. I don't see grounds for deletion as GNG trumps any SNG.Icewhiz (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closure is based on weight of arguments, not "votes" - though that was at 4-2 at the relist. But hang on - sorry! I erroneously tagged Icewhiz! It was User:Just Chilling who relisted it, and who I'd meant to tag! Fixed! Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the sourcing's not fantastic, but there's enough and he's now playing for a professional team. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It could include more sources, but it may fail WP:NFOOTBALL and it passes WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per above I believe the article has some references and should not be deleted. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2019 (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.