Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben George

Add links
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 no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben George

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ben George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if the person is notable. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the reason what Govvy mentioned. Found no coverage of the person in the internet. 1 appearance and then amateur football is the down-side of NFOOTBALL: "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable". Generally is not always, or is it? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NFootball should cover a few appearances not a singular one in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in WP:BEFORE, though some passing mentions at least in mine. 2017 consensus suggests that SNGs are not to supersede GNG if the presumed references are not found, assuming they should be easy to find (recent, english language). — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and thoughts - Alpha3031 is spot on. There is a bare minimum of WP:NFOOTBALL which is a rough and ready way of considering notability (and at ruling out cases). The RfC linked above correctly identifies that GNG must still be met, and it isn't here, either in-article or elsewhere, as it takes the form of either primary/non-reliable or short mentions. I'd ask the deluge above to give their thoughts on whether their !votes still stand up. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still feel this fails basic WP:GNG even know there has been an attempt to improve the article the provided citations are WP:ROUTINE. I am normally for keeping players that pass NFootball but on this occasion I feel there is a severe lack of notability as the player has failed to have a professional football career and carry the same sentiments as the above delete's. Govvy (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. He passes WP:NFOOTBALL and, after looking at the BBC reference, appears to pass WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ifnord, could you clarify which BBC reference you're referring to? I've re-gone over the 3 given in-article, and none of those give more than 2 lines on Ben. However I wanted to check I wasn't missing one. GNG usually requires multiple sources but an actually in-depth bbc source would certainly be sufficient to shift me here. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I was looking at [1], but you're right. It looks like only a cursory mention. Ifnord (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit clash, and a rewrite) - Cheers for clarifying. Given your comment, me expanding on why it doesn't satisfy GNG seems unwarranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Largely per User:Govvy and User:Alpha3031. As SNGs are not to supersede GNG, I fail to see how the subject meets the necessary requirements to warrant an article. It could be possible that the subject will eventually meet GNG in time, but at the moment, that doesn't seem to be the case IMHO. I have to add however that the nominator probably should have worded the AfD a bit differently.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has been 5 years since his professional debut, and he seems to be barely making the eighth tier of the English football league system, having been dropped by Stamford after five appearances. He previously dropped from the sixth tier. Based on the stated reason he left Stamford, it seems George is concentrating on a career outside of football, and unlikely to return to a professional level. To me, the article that comes closest to GNG is the Express & Star article that probably precipitated article creation in 2013. I'd prefer the NFOOTY SNG was a clear guideline without referring back to GNG, but this is not the case. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY and articles like these suggest he squeaks in under GNG too:[2][3][4]. @Jacknstock: Judging by this article, it seems his appearances last season were restricted by injury. Number 57 19:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So he's maintained tier 8 and found a team much closer to home? That's good for him, but it seems we're tracking the soccer career of a very good amateur, not a professional. I think that articles like this should be kept, but it doesn't seem to meet the guidelines, and consensus seems to be swaying towards meta:Deletionism. The article meets criteria under WP:5P. I hope others agree with you that it squeaks in with all the ever-shifting rules and guidelines. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WP:GNG argument is an interesting one, but I think it's ultimately just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument since he only played one professional game. Almost all professional footballers are by their nature routine, and WP:NFOOTY exists to help us sort out what routine is important and what routine isn't important, because almost if not all professional footballers receives media coverage throughout their career, and George is no different - he was discussed in the media throughout his career, even though most of it was in the lower leagues, and played 90 minutes in a League One match. Not all of the coverage he received is in the article, though admittedly not everything in the article is significant, like his goal in this friendly: [5]. Still I think he does satisfy WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. No reason to make an exception to a general rule. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the real question is not if the article passes NFOOTY (btw "Players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable" – so not always), but if it passes WP:GNG? NFOOTY basically covers a part of GNG - appearing in fully professional league generally means lots of coverage. Few apps in English lower leagues gets actually much less coverage than many professional footballers in half amateur leagues – hundreds, even thousands of them have been deleted from Wiki for not meeting NFOOTY... But in this case, people dug out every mention of B.George found in web. The article did look like this when I nominated, ofcourse it's much better now. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: given the debate here and activity, it only makes sense to relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current way Wikipedia has the guidelines for footballers, Ben George is evidently notable due to NFOOTY - arguable whether he passes GNG. Whether or not the guidelines for footballers need changing is a different discussion, as it stands George is notable. Can't be nitpicking different players on different guidelines, consistency should remain key. Change may or may not be needed, but that should be discussed in a more suitable place than on an AfD. R96Skinner (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @R96Skinner: NFOOTY is a secondary of GNG, hence #2 will generally be regarded as notable. This implies that even if you do play one professional game GNG rule still applies first and foremost. I truly believe we have a false positive here. For all the keep votes at the top haven't applied NFOOTY rules correctly in my opinion. And we are going to have such weak rules I could have a football article on wiki, I've played more than this guy!! Govvy (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't perfect, that's another point. I understand the wording of NFOOTY, but the fact is (rightly or wrongly) it has been used as an 'actual' guideline for so long and will continue to be as long as NFOOTY remains the same regardless of the Ben George outcome. That leads to a ridiculous amount of inconsistency. Why not go after changing NFOOTY, rather than everyone having a guideline vs. guideline vs. guideline discussion on individual AfDs. Nothing seems to change doing it this way; give it a few months, another AfD like this will come up again - in the meantime, similar articles will continue to be deleted/kept inconsistently. R96Skinner (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_George&oldid=1137607657"