Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
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. Per WP:SNOW. Unanimous consensus that WP:NFOOTY supports the retention of this article, with additional policy-based arguments also supporting Keep. Any issues with WP:NFOOTY should be addressed at the appropriate venue. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ainscow[edit]

Andy Ainscow (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)

A Run-of-the-mill article; just an ordinary professional football player, only subject to routine coverage. Burning Pillar (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - played in the Football League, meaning he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Number 57 18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NFOOTY. Lepricavark (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • These !votes rely on arguments that are made contrary to policy. Per WP:N, an article must not only pass a notability guideline, it also must not be excluded under WP:NOT. Passing the notability guideline is not a sufficient argument to keep an article if there are arguments that it is excluded under WP:NOT.Burning Pillar (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lemme ask you a question: would you apply the same argument to an article such as this one? Also, how is this player disqualified by WP:NOT? Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably yes... Now, look at the sources.A Newspaper that doesn't even mention the subject, statistics from fan sites,a staff list... there are lots, and I mean lots of people who satisfy this. Take a look at section 2 of WP:NOTNEWS and then tell me that you see more than routine coverage like broad statistics databases or newspapers or staff lists....
        • If you really want to look only at WP:NFOOTBALL, then there are actually some other problems- WP:NFOOTBALL is treated as something that makes articles always notable in this discussion, but the article can only pass 2. and the criteria don't say that meeting that should be always treated as automatic notability; AND the sources that support these WP:NFOOTBALL claims are not meeting these criteria, while they actually must if WP:NSPORTS is to be applied for keeping.( Additionally, the WP:NSPORTS page claims that it only exists to help editors evaluate if the article indeed could meet WP:GNG, but I don't think that the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria do that, but this is probably more a reason to make some changes to the guideline as parts of it contradict others). Burning Pillar (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not as familiar with football/soccer players, but after reading your response to my question about the baseball player, I can't take your comments here seriously. Moreover, I'm not sure which article you are claiming has statistics from "fan sites", but I fail to see how that relates to NOTWHOSWHO. At the end of the day, it's our job to provide useful information for our readers. It is a disservices to our readers to delete articles such as this one. You should note the keep !votes by experienced editors (who know Wikipedia policy) in this discussion and reconsider why you are trying to get this page deleted. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, these broad statistics on fansites are practically a WP:WHOSWHO, and if we base articles solely on sources that are a whoswho, or routine news, then we are allowing these sources to make Wikipedia what it should not be. And indeed, the article doesn't go beyond providing statistics in prose- there is nothing special about this player. I can sum this article up like that: This player played some games in the football league, scored in his debut(not uncommon; alsoWP:DOGBITESMAN), then retired(and became a junior coach somewhere). There are no indications of anything that makes this player stand out in the crowd- for example an outstanding performance over multiple seasons(something that might cause this player to get non-routine attention by reliable sources).This player is nothing special. Wikipedia is not a repository for broad statistics databases or a regurgiation of all press attention.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I notice that you didn't respond to the part of my comment regarding all the experienced !keep voters who have a strong grasp of policy. Also, you have yet to explain why deleting this article would help our readers. Your argument here is a classic case of leaning too heavily on policies and guidelines without giving any consideration to the actual benefits of deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Benefit of deletion? Not giving this football player undue attention.Burning Pillar (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:NFOOTY. — foxj 20:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So I wanted to take this a bit beyond the typical "keep, he passes WP:NFOOTY" argument. WP:NFOOTY gives a presumption that sources exist. I think this is helpful in a few instances. One is when a subject is relatively old. The older a subject is (or for an athlete the older their prime sporting years), the harder it is to actually find sources. While certainly this applies to pre-Internet players, I think that can go back as few as five years as many sources are not online anymore. Here, the subject played about 30 years ago. Let's face it, most editors are sitting at their computer and doing online research. No one is going through hard newspapers finding sources. However, we can presume that a player that played in the Football League of that era would have been covered in newspapers - its just difficult and a lot to ask a volunteer website to go check those. Also in the favor is this player played in 22 games over multiple seasons. Its not like we have a guy who made an appearance in 1 game in the last ten minutes. He scored four times. I think its fair to say that a scorer for Wigan would have been covered in the local newspapers. Its a presumption the community has created and it should be respected. I could see a different argument for a player who two years ago played one game and then retired. For that, we could as to show cause to see what is out there. In that case, the Internet should have something. Here, its not reasonable for the Internet to have much and the vast majority of newspapers are not Internet archived and readily searchable. In view of the players age and the relatively large number of appearances, I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sure that your claim that this player had routine coverage in newspapers is correct, but that isn't sufficient for WP:GNG, and the article still violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTWHOSWHO if the reasons for the existance of this article are mere statistics and routine news coverage. Your reasoning doesn't convince me that I am wrong at all, rather the opposite. But thanks for giving your reasoning. It helps.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject of the article has played in a professional league with relatively well known clubs such as Wigan Athletic and Rotherham United. True the article is not the best written but that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes NFOOTY as noted multiple times above. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2017 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Ainscow

Leave a Reply