Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerr Young

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 USERFY. A lot was made of WP:NFOOTBALL in this debate, but only two appearances in a league that is disputed to meet NFOOTY in any case is a bit marginal to say the least. Normally, I am not very sympathetic to "GNG trumps specific guidelines" type arguments, but in this case, I think the deletes have it. The article will be userfied as requested on the grounds that this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spinning Spark 15:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kerr Young[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY - the Scottish First Division isn't a WP:FPL, and he's played 1 game. Also fails WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion over the professionalism of the SFL1 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Scottish Football League Division One. FWIW, the league was at least considered fully-professional until recently, so when the player made his sole appearance he met NFOOTBALL. Notability is permanent, after all. Giant Snowman 11:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this discussion: your comment is incorrect, as his debut was yesterday,[1] and that diff is from 7 days prior to that. Thus, the nomination is still valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; a league does not stop being fully-professional overnight. I think it would be sensible to consider the league as semi-professional (if we do come to that conclusion) from the end of this season. Giant Snowman 12:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following your logic. If clubs are part-time now, as they most definitely appear to be, then it's a semi-pro league now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way then - the league does not stop being notable overnight. Attempting to track the notability of a league on a weekly basis, due to the comings & goings of players & changes in contracts etc. would be an exercise in futility. Giant Snowman 12:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand, but it looks fairly certain that, for this whole season, the league hasn't been fully pro (the clubs can't have become part time overnight, by exactly the same logic you used, and it's not just one club). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the league was considered "fully-professional" - at least as far as Wikipedia's notability standards goes - until a few days ago. Giant Snowman 12:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but, at the risk of going around in circles, the change was before this article was moved into mainspace, a week before. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have proposed, at the discussion at WT:FPL linked to above, that we consider the league fully-pro for the entire season. That seems sensible to me - playing a game a day or a week before should not impact on notability in the same way that playing in different seasons would. Giant Snowman 14:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is deleted - and I don't think it should be, as there is a strong claim for him meeting WP:NFOOTBALL (see the discussion at WT:FPL linked to above) - then I would ask the closing admin to re-userfy it to User:Blethering Scot/Kerr Young. Giant Snowman 13:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I would also confirm that I would like it to be re userfied in that event. However consensus has been that playing in this div is notable & was agreed would meet WP:NFooty so any change in that consensus should not change mid season. Blethering Scot 09:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Someone needs to add into the FPL list a section for "leagues that were fully pro but now aren't", and the dates they were pro in. Otherwise, this sort of thing will happen again. I'm not going to withdraw the nom, because one game in a league that may or may not be fully pro is a bit marginal to say the least. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or we convert the whole list into a table, listing only those leagues that are (or have been fully-pro) i.e., then adding a column for when they became fully-pro, and a column when they lost that status. But that's something for discussion at WT:FPL. Giant Snowman 10:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Scottish Division One has never been fully professional. There's been various attempts to re-draw the notability line around it or make it a special case - but these have all failed because ultimately they are based on a ludicrous premise. The real question mark is over the SPL. At the moment, the source which 'supports' the SPL's inclusion at WP:FPL is an interview with Campbell Money where he recalls playing top flight football himself as a part-timer in the recent past. He was stacking shelves to make ends meet! 176.253.69.131 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Still NN. May be notable one day, but probably still part of a youth squad. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either way, WP:NFOOTY is just a rule of thumb - we presumed that a player passes WP:GNG if they has played in this or that league. We shouldn't create articles on players that fails GNG, regardless on how many appearance they've made in a fully pro league. My searches suggests that this article fails GNG, but I would be happy to see it recreated once GNG is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the SFL1 has been restored (by an Admin) to WP:FPL, so this player actually meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this individual meets the General Notability Guideline; per Mentoz86, NFOOTY is only a presumption of notability, which looks like it doesn't apply in this case due to the afore-mentioned GNG failure. That's before you delve into whether the SPL1 league is "fully professional" or not. Also per Mentoz86, being in a FPL does not mean, for me, that every player ever to have played in this league should have an article. Particularly not when GNG is not met. Text from the article like "At the start of the 2011–12 season he made regular appearances on the bench.[3][4]" indicate just how notable this individual is. C 679 06:24, 6 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.