Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aarran Racine

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. Kurykh (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aarran Racine[edit]

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

Has never played in a professional league - in this case for any club in the English Premier League or Football League. Well-written article but not one that is merited, unless and until he plays League football or does so in another country. Monty (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sussexpeople (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sussexpeople (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well written article with plenty of coverage, see here, here, here, and here. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of that comes close to significant coverage. The BBC links are just rehashes of local reporting none of which are of significant length at all. The only one that is of signifcant length is a local newspaper. The fact that the article is well written is irrelevant. Fenix down (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is well written shows that there are plenty of sources, which in turn means that there is significant coverage. I don't think that one footballer can be mentioned so many times in so many websites and still be categorized as WP:ROUTINE. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is that Fenix down is right, but it's not so much a personal view as the guideline by which we work here. Simply put, Aarran Racine shouldn't have an article unless and until he plays League football or does so at professional level in another country. Being mentioned fourteen times doesn't constitute significant coverage, as Fenix down says; what matters is that he has, as yet, only played non-League football. I'm very much for improving the coverage of the non-League game here, but also in agreement with the current guidelines regarding notability. Monty (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY is not the sole reason for keeping a football related article, in fact with so many editors [[Proposal: limit JPL's AFD-rate[edit]#Proposal: limit JPL's AFD-rate|saying that]] there are too many stub articles that pass WP:NFOOTY but fail WP:GNG, I think it is only fair that an article that passes WP:GNG is kept. This player has received a fair deal of coverage and to delete the article because it doesn't necessarily pass WP:NFOOTY I believe is 1.) a waste of a good article 2.) hypocritical given the fact that editors create stub after stub every day. Anyway that is the last I will comment on this discussion, good day. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 08:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY Spiderone 11:38, 12 April 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.