- 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Dale Weiler
- Dale Weiler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject fails to meet notability guidelines. While the subject appears to meet sport specific criteria, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) FAQ#2 states that the subject must still meet the general notability guidelines. The subject lacks "significant coverage". The article was created 6+ years ago and only has one reference, to a broken link, from the subject's University Athletics program and not his former professional team. Searching on Google fails to reveal significant coverage of the subject. Many sources briefly mention the subject, identifying participation in a game or the time at which a goal was scored. But articles with depth on the subject were not found. Additionally, many of those sources lack reliability or independence from the subject. Becky Sayles ( talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica 1000 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. This is not a player who played 10 mins, this is someone who spent three seasons as a professional making over 30 appearances. Needs improving to meet WP:GNG, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Question @
GiantSnowman:Have you found any sources?
Notability requires verifiable evidence. All the search results
here(newspapers) are
routine coverage or unrelated.
The results ten pages into Google yields only
one result that resembles a reliable source that actually covers the subject.
Becky Sayles (
talk)
07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ Becky Sayles: - sources added, there are more out there, and a bunch on HighBeam which I can't access... Giant Snowman 18:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - He hast played in a Fully professional league on many occasions therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA ( talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:NFOOTY, has played repeatedly in a fully professional league. Article needs expanding not deleting. Fenix down ( talk) 16:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Having played in the USL First Division, this player meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep satisfies notability requirements.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael ( talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Four of the above keep !votes only address
WP:NFOOTY, which by itself is insufficient.
WP:NSPORTS states that
WP:GNG must still be met.
Becky Sayles (
talk)
07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:NSPORTS opens by saying "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (my emphasis), which is the case here. What is the problem?
Giant
Snowman
09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- To support GS's point, please see
The Deletion Archive for a very long list of players kept or deleted on the basis of NFOOTY to support the notion that there is a long standing consensus that a significant career in a
fully professional league is sufficient for the subject to be considered generally notable.
Fenix down (
talk)
10:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @
Fenix down: Looking at the
The Deletion Archive, among the AfDs that resulted in keep since September, it is not clear that NFOOTY alone is sufficient is the consensus.
Jules Boykoff doesn't discuss NFOOTY.
List of Persib Bandung is about a redirect and not notability.
Kingsley Chigozie,
Dimitrios Stefanakos,
Fran O'Leary, and
James Kiffe met both GNG and NFOOTY.
Victor Ortiz GNG sources were found.
Kenneth Dougall and
Srdan Grahovac didn't discuss GNG sources. Only in
Spencer Thompson is NFOOTY addressed as the appropriate standard.
Becky Sayles (
talk)
19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ Becky Sayles: - did you actually read the AFDs you have quoted directly above? Kingsley Chigozie doesn't mention GNG as a reason for keeping; Dimitrios Stefanakos also doesn't mention GNG as a reason for keeping; and James Kiffe has a majority of 'keep' !votes exclusively mentioning NFOOTBALL, with a handful mentioning both... Giant Snowman 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @
Fenix down: Looking at the
The Deletion Archive, among the AfDs that resulted in keep since September, it is not clear that NFOOTY alone is sufficient is the consensus.
Jules Boykoff doesn't discuss NFOOTY.
List of Persib Bandung is about a redirect and not notability.
Kingsley Chigozie,
Dimitrios Stefanakos,
Fran O'Leary, and
James Kiffe met both GNG and NFOOTY.
Victor Ortiz GNG sources were found.
Kenneth Dougall and
Srdan Grahovac didn't discuss GNG sources. Only in
Spencer Thompson is NFOOTY addressed as the appropriate standard.
Becky Sayles (
talk)
19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- To support GS's point, please see
The Deletion Archive for a very long list of players kept or deleted on the basis of NFOOTY to support the notion that there is a long standing consensus that a significant career in a
fully professional league is sufficient for the subject to be considered generally notable.
Fenix down (
talk)
10:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:NSPORTS opens by saying "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (my emphasis), which is the case here. What is the problem?
Giant
Snowman
09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ GiantSnowman: - As stated above, Kingsley Chigozie, Dimitrios Stefanakos, and James Kiffe met both GNG and NFOOTY, making them not relevant to the consensus issue addressed by Fenix down. The implication would require application of NFOOTY when GNG is not met, rather than when it is not mentioned. A !vote with one reason for support does not necessarily mean an absence of other reasons. [a] Becky Sayles ( talk) 21:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Further info - there is plenty of consensus at AFD where players who made only 1 appearance have been deleted (which I have supported!) - but that does not apply here, Weiler had a short-but-decent professional career. Giant Snowman 12:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:NSPORTS says more than that:
Meeting NFOOTY means it is likely to meet the general notability guidelines, not that it does meet them. Becky Sayles ( talk) 18:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)"This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such asWikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.(my emphasis)
- New Comment Two issues are dispositive in this Afd. One is the consensus, if it exists, about the sufficiency of NFOOTY alone vs GNG. The other, dependent on the first, is whether or not GNG is met here. The assumption made that NFOOTY alone is sufficient is incorrect because of the language of the guidelines as described above. It is also incorrect because
Policy on Consensus states
While my own brief look into the archive does not support the described local consensus, I assume that GiantSnowman's comments in Spencer Thompson are an accurate reflection of his experience. Unfortunately, here a subset of editors participating in football AfDs are asking to apply local consensus over the broader consensus established in applicable guidelines and policy. [b]"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages.) Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others."
- If policy is correctly applied, then GNG must be met. At the time of nomination, the article had only one reference [1] which is a routine athlete profile from a school athletics website that supports content in the article, but not notability of the subject. Four additional references have been added, but they too are limited. [2] and [3] are more routine profiles, only indicating team membership, and participation in games, with no depth of coverage. [4] and [5] are from the same source behind a paywall. [c] Becky Sayles ( talk) 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ In Chigozie, Pharaoh provides sources, and explicitly addresses GNG. NickG then !voted per Pharaoh. In Stefanakos Jogurney a greek article as "significant coverage in a reliable source" also explicitly mentioning GNG. And in Kiffe, GauchoDude identifies sources, and explicitly addresses meeting GNG, along with multiple other users who discuss GNG.
- ^ The appropriate way to handle such a change would be to discuss and edit the guidelines, rather than incorrectly apply them to AfDs.
- ^ Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- 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.