Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Ainscow (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Burning Pillar (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ainscow[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. There is extremely low coverage, and all those are not independent sources, mention him in passing as someone with an official funcion and/or are broad statistics databases. This player might seem to meet WP:NSPORTS, but the assumption of notability isn't correct, in this case. Burning Pillar (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Happy to be proven wrong here, as my knowledge of the finer details of English football aren't what they used to be, but if he played for a team in a "fully-professional league", WP:NFOOTY tells me he's notable. Unless I'm misreading something, he did precisely that, did he not? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BigHaz. Ainscow played in the Football League 23 times and so easily passes WP:NFOOTY. The nominator's points have already been addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sports notability guideline and long-standing consensus and discussion have led to where we are now. I should add that pointy nominations like this don't help your case on that page. Keresaspa (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should also be noted that the nominator already went through this process little over a month ago and the overwhelming consensus was keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Ainscow. All the points raised there remain equally relevant now. Probably should speedy close this one. Keresaspa (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first deletion discussion was about meeting WP:NSPORTS and failing WP:NOT; not about WP:GNG.Burning Pillar (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS:The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sports notability guideline was closed with a procedural close, so I don't get why you think that the points were somehow adressed!Burning Pillar (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a horse in the race as far as the RFC is concerned, I'd point out that I don't see how a procedural closure saying (in effect) "this is going to go nowhere in terms of changing consensus" is an endorsement for changing the current status quo. Had there been anything but that in the closure of the RFC, you'd be right in what you're saying here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NFOOTY tells you that it is likely that he is notable. You all probably made the mistake most people make: They read WP:NFOOTY without reading WP:NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines, which tells you that the article is still supposed to meet the WP:GNG, and I mentioned above why it does not. It isn't too surprising that we don't have that much coverage if the statistics provided are indeed correct:23 appearances with 4 goals as forward in Football League Third Division aren't something that usually generates significant coverage in reliable independent sources.Burning Pillar (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a form of forum-shopping WP:FORUMSHOP, making the same proposal only a few weeks after being declined. Accept the consensus and move on. Secondly, as Ainscow's career was pre-internet, WP:BEFORE requires you to make a reasonable search of off-line sources. You make no mention in either AFD of any such search. As for your argument about WP:GNG, the topic is not required to meet both WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG, just one or the other. To quote WP:GNG:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline... [my emphasis]
Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed fall into the trap.

1. Per WP:N An article must meet either GNG or SNG.

2. The SNG WP:NSPORTS tells you that the article needs to meet the GNG.

3. Conclusion: The article needs to meet the GNG.

And about WP:BEFORE: Read it again. Especially D. Yeah, there could be some not so easily accessible sources. However, they were not added in the many years of the article's existance, so it is a reasonable assumption that they don't exist.Burning Pillar (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, that logic doesn't work. Reading from the very top of the NSPORTS page, we see the following (in bold, no less). "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Being that there are reliable sources showing that he meets the second criterion of the criteria for footballers (and, strangely enough, that there were the same things a month and a bit ago), we can therefore conclude that he does indeed meet the "sport specific criteria set forth below", which means he's fine. But let's not stop there. Second paragraph, same page: "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)". The wording there is pretty clear, I'd say. In the event that the subject doesn't meet the specific criteria, then we need to turn to GNG (or his notability may stem from something else, but that's another story), rather than the other way around. This was what the rules were a month and a bit ago before you had a shot at changing them, which didn't work out. Assuming the inevitable here, will there be another RFC and the renomination of this article a third time? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. See... what it says is that you can assume that the subject does meet the GNG, but this presumption is dubious here. And if you read WP:NFOOTY, then you can see that this player meets a criterion that is not that reliable.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article passed an AfD less than 2 months ago started by the same user. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he played at a fully professional level. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 9 May 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.