Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaquille McDonald

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. I eventually managed to make sense of this discussion and understand the 'FOOTYN' and 'NFOOTY' references that were thrown around in abundance! Daniel (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquille McDonald[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article just about makes it through on notability: he's played one match for Chester, who are currently in Conference National, and new reference says he's playing a league match at York City in a week. For starters, Conference National is not a fully pro league and therefore playing in that league does not confer notability. Second, the claim that he would play for York within a week is not grounds for notability per WP:CRYSTAL, and also turned out to be incorrect since he has not played in the following the publication of that article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above as has not played in fully professional league or senior international team. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:FOOTYN requires player to have played on fully professional team - not a in a fully professional league. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently WP:FOOTYN has been superceded, but no one could be arsed to fix WP:FOOTY to point to the correct guideline until today. Still, there's no point deleting an article, that will mostly likely be recreated in days to weeks, given he's now a bench regular on a fully-professional team.Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Nfitz:, please re-read WP:NFOOTY as it most categorically does not say what you claim. It states that a player must have played in a fully professional league to have passed NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Fenix down: please re-read WP:FOOTYN as it most categorically does say that! It says "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure." Also, aren't we just wasting our time trying to delete articles like this? The guy was recently traded, and as recently as yesterday sat on the bench during a League 2 game [1]. I'm not invoking that as notability, but I just don't see the point in going to the trouble of deleting an article that would most likely simply be reinstated in a matter of days or weeks. I'd think common sense would dictate that we simply ignore these articles for a few weeks, until suddenly they are notable without debate, or they get run over by a bus. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Nfitz: You would do well to re-read WP:FOOTYN as well. In addition to what you pointed out, it also says The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. As such, what it says on player notability doesn't carry much weight, and as Fenix down already pointed out, the guideline that superseded it, specifically contradicts your assertion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nfitz does not understand that WP:NFOOTY is the guideline, not WP:FOOTYN, which is an essay. The guideline states that a player must have played in "a fully professional league", not for a fully-professional club. The Conference is not fully professional, so he fails it. Number 5 7

If WP:NFOOTY has indeed been superceded by WP:NFOOTY (not sure when that happened), you'd think that someone would have changed WP:FOOTY by now to reference WP:FOOTYN instead of WP:NFOOTY ... given all the time that people seem to be willing to waste deleting perfectly useful articles that may be borderline, based on arbitrary (and apparently everchanging) criteria. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz:, you seem to be tying yourself in knots here. The relevant guideline for player notability is WP:NFOOTY. The essay at WP:FOOTY that has been superceded is WP:FOOTYN. NFOOTY took priority back in April 2012. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the no one could be arsed to change WP:FOOTY to point to the correct guideline. Ironic that so many can waste so much time with these idiotic borderline article destructions, but can't instead do something useful. #WikiFail Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the correct guideline right at the top of the section. It's pretty clear, which is why you are the only person to have made this error in the two years since the essay was superceded by a formal guideline. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is now, there wasn't 3 days ago. Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY... JMHamo (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2014 (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.