Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cook (footballer, born 1885) (2nd nomination)

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 Taken to DRV instead. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook (footballer, born 1885)[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)

Previous nomination resulted in a completely non-policy based pile-on and a therefore dubious outcome, so I'm boldly and speedily renominating. Fails WP:GNG (thus rebutting the presumption offered by NSPORT), and whether those sources are online, offline or, like the proverbial teapot, in the middle of interplanetary space, it is the burden of those claiming they exist to present them, not (unlike the usual NFOOTY bandwagon of last time) to merely claim they "probably exist". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The player made numerous appearances as a professional footballer in a professional league. You do realise his career was between 1899 and 1909 so there weren't a great plethora of online source at that time, right? I'm sure we could scour the microfiches at the libraries of Airdrie, Grimsby, Plymouth for newspaper reports but that's not particularly necessary when the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL as was found in the previous discussion. Nominating an article incorrectly once is fine, but it reflects rather poorly on your judgement to nominate it a second time.--Echetus Xe 21:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense devoid of any grounding in reality. In 1899 and 1909, there was also far less coverage of sports than in 2022 (or even 1999), so projecting modern standards back there is the incorrect thing to do here. If sources exist, then yes, the burden is on you to show they exist. Scouring microfiches (which contain what would likely be considered as primary sources) is not required nor desirable for an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - The last AfD was closed today. If there's a problem with the close of the last AfD, go to DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the close, it's the whole AfD which is irreparably tainted by the non-policy based NFOOTY bullet votes. The only solution is to start a new one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck keeping the "non-policy based NFOOTY bullet votes" off this one :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion? It's a guideline, but it's much better established than WP:NSPORT. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with WP:NOTBURO and even more so with "trust your gut". Like it or not, the previous AfD was irretrievably and fundamentally flawed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion is not one of Wikipedia's official policies or guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing at AfD is increasing the bureaucratic load. Bad AfD discussions are a fairly common consequence of the poor ratio of active AfD particpants to AfD workload, but if you believe that instarenoms are going to improve the AfD process, I think you badly misunderstand the nature of the problem. Then again, the context in which you brought about this AfD (your quote, Two wrongs don't make a right. Here, fixed for you. is rather WP:POINTY) suggests you were not thinking about what would happen if your action became a commonplace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure I've ever seen this before: a discussion with a clear consensus to keep is closed as "keep", then someone upset with that goes and nominates it again 80 minutes later! Per prior AfD, I believe this should be kept (speedy?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No valid keep rationale was presented last time. The subject does not meet GNG, and the English football leages were not fully professional back then (as shown by Bring back Daz Sampson). So doesn't even meet NFOOTY, despite the ill-considered bandwagon. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the ping. I agree, obviously. I'd be surprised if there are any sources, on microfiche or otherwise, to confirm the "fully professional" status of the EFL Second Division (featuring Grimsby Town) in 1906. In 1908 First Division "Sunderland had a rate of £1 (2019: £105) to £2 (2019: £219) per week which was based upon recipients having full-time employment elsewhere during the week". Plymouth Argyle were in the Southern League 1908–09 so those alleged appearances would not count towards WP:NFOOTBALL in any case. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such discussions would surely be better at WT:FPL rather than the AfD for an individual footballer who actually passes NFOOTBALL quite comfortably. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:NSPORT, all athletes have to pass GNG regardless of passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Not that it matters as he fails that too as the English football leages were not fully professional when he played. Alvaldi (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The OP is unhappy with the result of an AfD that just closed with a clear consensus. This nomination is disruptive and WP:POINTY. Try WP:DRV or wait at least a few months before renominating. Mlb96 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is disruptive is when people don't wish to engage with the issue at hand and instead do special pleading. I specifically chose to start a new AfD given the previous one was so defective and that between going to DRV and starting a new one, this would likely take less time and be less of a bureaucratic time-waste, i.e. WP:NOTBURO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then to address your argument on the merits: Keep because he satisfies NSPORTS and your interpretation of NSPORTS would relegate it to about as useful as a humor page. He played professional soccer for 10 years, there is absolutely no way that sources don't exist. And if you insist that NSPORTS truly accomplishes nothing and is a complete waste of bytes, then consider this !vote to be based on WP:IAR. Mlb96 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He played football one century ago in what could maybe be but probably isn't a truly fully professional league. If there is "absolutely no way that sources don't exist", then it should be absolutely trivial to find them. Having an article based on poor sources and be nothing more than a database entry does not improve the encyclopedia, so while I appreciate the tacit acknowledgement that this is special pleading, it does not solve the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close This is just disruptive straight after admin Fenix down closed who was following standard procedure. You didn't even go to his talk page, saying you were going to renominate straight after which I would consider poor judgement. There are a number of red flags done with this re-nomination if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and trout the nominator. Take to WP:DRV if you do not like the outcome of the previous discussion. I would close this myself but as I !voted in the last AFD I am involved. NB if this is not withdrawn or closed in the next few hours I will be flagging at ANI @RandomCanadian:. Giant Snowman 11:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cook (footballer, born 1885) was closed on 18 January 20:03, this nomination was made at 21:24 the same day. This is a professional footballer from an era in which online sources are scant, and his name is also very common making searching difficult.--Mvqr (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2022 (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.