Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bulman

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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bulman[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and even though he barely passes WP:NFOOTBALL, it is not enough to be considered notable. Giant Snowman 20:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – he played in a Cup game between two league clubs, does this not count these days? Swindon v Boston, FA Cup, 2005. Boston were a league club at that time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ The game in question was in the First Round, at which point there were still 124 teams in a tournament of 674 teams. I don't see how that qualifies under WP:NFOOTBALL Listmeister (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what round the game is in – what makes you think it does? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone who ever appeared in an FA Cup game, any player on any of those 674 clubs that play every year, gets to be have his own article? WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't say anything about playing in a national tournament, even one as important as the FA cup. Listmeister (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, only in matches between or for professional clubs. Nobody here has argued that point, including deleters, and it's the way it's always been, as far as I know. Otherwise you could play 5 minutes as a sub in a league game for Barnet and be notable, yet (theoretically) play for Man United in the Cup Final and not be notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Keep Fully professional leagues goes all the way down to League Two. I didn't see that the first time I looked at this, and I apologize. The FA Cup thing is completely irrelevant. He played for Swindon Town in 2005, which was then in League One, which qualifies according to established practice. Listmeister (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bretonbanquet. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one substitute appearance in a Cup match means he technically scrapes by WP:NFOOTBALL by the skin of his teeth - but he comprehensively fails WP:GNG which is far more important. Giant Snowman 10:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he fails WP:GNG then so do an awful lot of lower league footballers. I agree the satisfaction of WP:NFOOTBALL is tenuous, but it's there. Either you pass a notability guideline or you don't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there are other articles that pass NFOOTBALL but fail GNG - so what? NFOOTBALL is reliant upon, and subservient to, GNG. NFOOTBALL is only "presumed" notability as to actual notability, an important difference. Giant Snowman 21:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it fails WP:GNG – it seems to satisfy it, as far as I can see. Not by a wide margin, but enough. Why do you think it fails? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every source listed in the article is either a match report, transfer news, or a player profile, all of which is routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:GNG does it say that? And what other sources are likely for footballers? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - which this person has not received. The coverage he has received is WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 09:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to events, not people. Again, what other sources are likely for footballers? Perhaps you could direct me to a footballer article which does not use such "routine" coverage as sources? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly applies to people as well - "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" (my emphasis), otherwise we would have a flood of articles on lower league players based on nothing more than 'John Smith signed a two-year contract with Wiki FC' etc. Plenty of footballer articles meet GNG, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase for a list of peer-reviewed articles. Giant Snowman 13:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes, that clearly refers to sports events, not any kind of bio article. We do have a flood of articles on lower league players based on exactly that kind of sourcing, including the "good article" Barry Cogan (footballer), which, although more detailed and better-written, is based on exactly the type of sourcing that Matt Bulman is based on, i.e. nothing but BBC reports, squad profiles, local news reports of transfers and match reports – routine sports journalism. Cogan had a higher-profile career, but that isn't a requirement for WP:GNG. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you believe that this article and the one one Cogan are of equal standard shows that you need to brush up on notability requirements. Giant Snowman 15:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think I said they're of equal standard means you need to read my post again. I said nothing of the sort. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the the Cogan article is "based on exactly the type of sourcing" as the Bulman article - it shows you lack the ability to decipher sources articles re:GNG - hence why one is a peer-approved GA and the other is at AFD. Giant Snowman 15:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and it is. I made reference to the greater detail in the Cogan article, which is due to his brief participation in higher-profile games. Bulman's article needs work, not deletion. You brought up WP:ROUTINE, which is event-specific and has no bearing on bios; I don't consider your beliefs regarding what I lack to be of any merit, or relevance to this discussion. I still don't see what other kind of coverage a lower league footballer is likely to receive, and nobody here has offered anything, despite my asking twice. Bulman passes WP:NFOOTBALL (not by a lot, as we've said) and I consider his coverage in the reliable, independent sources used to be non-trivial (again, not by a lot), satisfying WP:GNG. That's basically my point – we disagree, and that's pretty much it, as far as I can see. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As alluded to by Bretonbanquet, many (probably most) articles about English Football League players are created as soon as the player makes his debut, with no more sourcing than a link to Soccerbase (a stats database) and, if you're lucky, a link to the BBC match report that lists his name in the teamsheet. But even that limited level of sourcing does verify that the player passes the relevant subject-specific notability guideline, and that is enough. The point of the subject-specific guideline is to set a standard at which the subject of the article can be presumed to meet the general notability guideline, and to allow time for the article about the subject to be improved to demonstrate the validity of that presumption. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He should be regularly playing for the first team of a League side or above to be notable. His present club is below that level. We ought not to allow articles for players who merely appear once or twice for a League club (or above). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an argument for changing WP:NFOOTBALL, not for deleting this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes NFOOTBALL, and that should be sufficient. If there is a concern over this guide being too broad, then it should be addressed as a change to NFOOTBALL not specific to one AFD. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match" – NO. "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" – NO. Then we go to GNG and for me it doesn't meet GNG. C 679 20:52, 15 April 2013 (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.