Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Leighfield

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. Vote-wise things are quite close but the delete votes are adamant there aren't sources to satisfy gng and the keep votes do nothing to suggest otherwise. GNG is the most important guideline and there is nothing here to indicate any significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Leighfield[edit]

[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)

PROD contested with the wording: "meets NFOOTBALL by playing in the Scottish Championship prior to 2019". The Scottish second tier has never been 'fully professional' per clear consensus on the FPL talk page so this article fails NFOOTY and more importantly fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my rationale when contesting the PROD. This player has multiple appearances in the Scottish Championship pre-dating 2019, when it was agreed on the talk page off FPL that the league was no longer fully professional (see current and established listing at WP:FPL). Therefore this player comfortably meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and has an ongoing career. Article needs improving, not deleting - I am sure @Rusty1111: who edits a lot of QOTS articles can assist with sources. Over 8,000 results on Google. Giant Snowman 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such agreement on the talk page - the prosaic fact is that the Scottish second tier has never been "fully professional". See User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Scottish football. In carrying out WP:BEFORE I didn't see any evidence of non-routine coverage for this player, and there is none in the article. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two people wishing for the Scottish second tier to be removed does not, in any way, represent consensus on the matter. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two people wishing for it to be kept, on the basis of their opinions about imaginary other criteria rather than if the league is fully professional or not (it isn't). Everyone else there has admitted that the league was never fully professional, including the only contributor with specialist knowledge of Scottish men's football. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if two people want it to remain and two people want it removed, we would have to say that there is no consensus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what happened here though is it? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly, if the only thing that can be written about the subject are a few minor points during the player's history, there's no reason to keep this or any perma-stub. I know that WikiProject Football has an internal agreement that such perma-stubs are acceptable, but we do not keep them in most other projects so we should star clamping down on the sports fields as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no substantive sources upon which to base a biography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Leighfield's page is even being considered for deletion, when two players for Queen of the South had pages newly created. Rusty1111 : Talk 08:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Queen of the South are a full professional club, and the championship is mainly professional with a couple of semi pro sides. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2021 (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.