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. Mkdw ^talk 21:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Gair[edit]

Dougie Gair (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)

WP:NFOOTY. The highest level of football he has played at is Scottish League Two, which is not fully professional. He plays for Edinburgh City, which is a semi-professional club that draws crowds of under 500. eg 378 for yesterday's match There is some coverage of him in the media, but this is of the routine nature (e.g. match reports). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant. It gives a presumption that a subject meets WP:GNG, not a requirement for a subject to have an article. So here, we have to look if the requirement from GNG, received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, is met. The Alan Temple articles and Ross Pilcher articles meet this requirement. Nothing in those are routine. Maybe you could call the BBC articles routine, but I would ask if the same article was written about teams in the Scottish Premiership, would we be calling it routine? BBC is national coverage - a match report in the Edinburgh papers is probably routine, but I don't know about the BBC. Irregardless, I think the Temple and Pilcher articles along show the sources need - the BBC coverage is icing on the cake. Nothing about those two bodies of articles are routine. Also, consider the metadata - the subject is the star player, captain, and prominent goal scorer for the first promotion into the Scottish Professional Football League. The lack of such promotion was a criticism for years of the old Scottish Football League. Edinburgh City's promotion, and the role of Dougie Gair, gained a lot of coverage based on that. Its was not routine, but a relatively historic event. This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Shaw (footballer). While not on that scale, a case where the coverage was there even though WP:NFOOTY was nowhere near met. The guidelines are just that and what always matters if GNG. Here, it is met. Any argument that the guideline is not met has no merit, the sources are what matter. If someone wants to argue the Temple and Pilcher sources are routine, then that is where the discussion belongs. But from where I sit, those are far from routine coverage. For example, I know of no other Edinburgh City player gaining such coverage - if they did, then it would be routine. The lack of such coverage for other players shows that this is not routine. RonSigPi (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: RonSigPi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

A few points about this. Most of the articles are based on copy from Deadline News, which is an Edinburgh-based news agency. Some of their copy is picked up by Scottish newspapers, most often the main local paper (Edinburgh Evening News). Edinburgh City, and its players, have gained more coverage this year because they were promoted into the SPFL. But the reality is that they are still playing at a semi-professional level, with crowds of under 500. To say Dougie Gair is a "star player" is something you have made up, based on absolutely nothing. To compare him with Wayne Shaw, whose pie-eating antics gained worldwide coverage (because it was in a televised match against Arsenal) is ludicrous. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is true, and under WP:GF I will take it as such, then I will retract my position. If its really from just one source, then it fails GNG. I do take issue with your other two points - I agreed that this was not on the level of Shaw, but used it for comparison. I think calling the comparison ludicrous is a bit much, even bordering on WP:CIV concerns, especially considering I even said it wasnt on the same scale. Far as the vilification of the term "star player", I stand by it and explained it. No other player on the team has gained this kind of coverage from what I saw. The term chosen may be a colloquialism, but the context it was used - in stating that he gained more coverage than anyone else on the team - it is taken out of the opinion realm. All of this is moot however, if its from one source and not the three I determined, then GNG is not met. RonSigPi (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:04, 24 April 2017 (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. Player has received some level of coverage at a city level, but wider coverage is of a purely routine nature restricted to match reporting on his team. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league. Although there is some local coverage of his career, it falls short of meeting WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The limited content of the article relates almost entirely to the 2016 playoffs. Of course these matches are significant, but they can be covered in articles on the club and the season, they don't need an article on someone judged to be a "star player" by one editor's WP:OR opinion. The subject clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and to justify inclusion under WP:GNG I would want to see sources that provide significant coverage of his whole career, not just these games. Jellyman (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and the references do not provide enough in depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete never played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet the requirements in WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:33, 30 April 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.