Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott MacNicol

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. There appears to be legitimate disagreement as to whether the sources provided constitute SIGCOV, but numerically the tilt toward deletion is sufficient to constitute consensus in this case. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott MacNicol[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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User has nominated/proposed around 25 articles for deletion (almost all related to Australia/Oceania and that they didn't create) in a very short amount of time (see User_talk:Simione001#AFDs). @GiantSnowman:, I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] among many more sources. Also definitely has offline coverage, having played and scored in fully pro Scottish Premier League and had extensive career in Australian top flight and as a coach. ṭThanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more like 6 mate. You found some decent references for this one I'll give you that. Simione001 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated/proosed these articles for deletion within the last day: Peter Bevilacqua, Bradley Clarke, Samuel Dweh, Akpo Godwin, Celestine Onyeka Obi, Melvin Minter, Daniel Ganderton, Paul Harries, George Horsfall, Zacari Hughes, Liam Jacob, Mario Jermen, Glenn Johnson, Kailo Karpeh, Panagiotis Lachanas, Paul Lapic, Leroy Jennings, Scott MacNicol , Anthony Magnacca, Chad Mansley, Dauntae Mariner, Steve McDonald, and David Meechan, which is more than 20. Also, I'm fine if you create stub articles and not delete others' articles but I don't understand how you can create stub articles and then go on a spree of trying to delete other users articles. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all from today so not nominated in short time as you suggested. Thanks. Simione001 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are not all from the same day but it is still a relatively short time. Also, I appreciate you creating many soccer articles no matter how small they are, but I find it frustrating that you do that while deleting many others hard work such as Dauntae Mariner and this article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MacNicol or McNicol ? The old BBC ref has McNicol, [8], but it seems MacNicol is more correct. No profile on soccerway is a red flag for me. Also, he is manager for a semi pro club where as the club article Rochedale Rovers FC is in terrible shape, (shouldn't it be moved to Rochedale Rovers F.C.?) Regardless of the citations and cover. From the article and provided above, I am not really that impressed. To me it's a case of citations being too local to the location of the club and where they play. I am not sure whether to weak keep or side with delete which is the way I am leaning too. Govvy (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to have a look into this, but I am still not impressed, with the sourcing available in the article, the links posted above and google. To me this is not sufficient to pass GNG on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy:, @GiantSnowman:, [9] and [10] are from national UK newspapers. The many other sources I found above are all from reliable sources and newspapers as well. Also definitely has offline coverage, having played and scored in fully pro Scottish Premier League and had extensive career in Australian top flight and as a coach. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage might be from good, reputable sources (although the Record is a tabloid), but it is not significant. Giant Snowman 21:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: Sorry, but my delete vote still stands, I still don't see enough here. Regards, Govvy (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant sources that pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant sources that (albeit just) pass GNG. Springnuts (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources above are not independent enough to pass GNG, interviews and such. There is insufficient coverage. Also, I don't see how mentioning that the nominator has also nominated numerous other articles is relevant here. --IWI (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources listed by Das osmnezz come nowhere close to meeting GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are individual match reports, interviews or not significant and as such do not meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2023 (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.