Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Goode
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Goode[edit]
Contested prod, original reason was "Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league - fails WP:BIO", contested by CJPargeter with an edit summary "Object to propsed deletion, as subject meets WP:N, having attracted attention from reliable sources." In fact, if he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources then he meets WP:BIO too. In such case such coverage should be shown. Jhony 16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Jhony 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO#Athletes and the attention from reliable sources is made irrelavant by this. Sean Thomas (English footballer) should also be deleted for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both fail football notability criteria. If/when they make their professional debut they can be recreated King of the NorthEast 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable footballer. Come back when/if he makes a fully professional league appearance. - fchd (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question? Is the role of the secondary criteria to replace the primary criteria over the field they cover, to supplement it, by providing an alternative justification, or to add to it be requiring that both they and the publication criteria be met. as far as i can tell the official line is that they merely act as a shorthand for predicting whether the primary criterion is overwhelmingly likely or not to be met. If they are merely predictive, then an article with 2 RSs discussing his putative career would stand regardless of whether he ever actually played a game in any league at all. There is however only one source at present, but there would probably be another, and then he would be notable. Personally, I think that's nonsense, and the correct view is that they replace the primary criterion. Does that have general acceptance? Or is it only in sports that they replace it?
- Well, WP:BIO says as it's base criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". That surely overrides everything else. Either someone is notable or not. You can't be notable from one rule. and then become unnotable again from another. But I don't think it applies yet. John Hayestalk 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question? Is the role of the secondary criteria to replace the primary criteria over the field they cover, to supplement it, by providing an alternative justification, or to add to it be requiring that both they and the publication criteria be met. as far as i can tell the official line is that they merely act as a shorthand for predicting whether the primary criterion is overwhelmingly likely or not to be met. If they are merely predictive, then an article with 2 RSs discussing his putative career would stand regardless of whether he ever actually played a game in any league at all. There is however only one source at present, but there would probably be another, and then he would be notable. Personally, I think that's nonsense, and the correct view is that they replace the primary criterion. Does that have general acceptance? Or is it only in sports that they replace it?
- Delete fails WP:BIO. Prod shouldn't have been contested. Peanut4 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:BIO. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete currently fails WP:FOOTY, but if more second party sources are added I will change my vote. John Hayestalk 20:16, 11 February 2008 (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.