Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Shaw (footballer)

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 keep. While there may not be consensus to include per NFOOTY, there is consensus that this article meets GNG for independent reasons. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Shaw (footballer)

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

Hasn't played in the league Telfordbuck (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not he's played professionally, two of the citations look independent and are specifically about him (and yes, I did notice that one of them was from the Daily Mail, recently agreed to be non-WP:RS). Narky Blert (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I've just added fresh info and a hot-off-the-press citation - a full column about Shaw in today's The Guardian. Narky Blert (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he may fail WP:ATHLETE, he seems to have enough coverage to pass GNG, such as [1] and [2]. Mattlore (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG takes more than a couple of tabloidy pieces. There are always "human interest" stories in the media when a small club play a big club in the FA Cup, whether tragic, heartwarming or, as in Mr Shaw's case, comic. Mr Shaw is the goalkeeping coach to Sutton United, a fifth-tier team drawn to play Arsenal in an unexpectedly late stage of the competition, who happens to be very fat. The sources currently present in the article are from the local paper from the Sutton area, the non-RS Daily Mail website, and the Evening Standard, a free-sheet that's given away in London to read on the train.
The pieces mentioned by Mattlore are two versions of the same story: that Mr Shaw apparently took advantage of a betting promotion connected with a major tabloid newspaper to make himself a few quid by eating a pie during the match, embarrassed his team by so doing, and might get into trouble with the football authorities.
A few articles in the lightweight end of the last few days' media hung on a fat bloke's non-playing involvement with a non-league team reaching the last 16 of the FA Cup doesn't convey individual notability. WP:N(E)#People notable for only one event says that "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." If the event were notable, a redirect would be appropriate, but I suspect it isn't; had Sutton beaten Arsenal, it might have been. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While he may fail FOOTYN, he does fulfil GNG. The Royal C (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely enough to pass GNG, and it would be disingenuous to suggest that every article has been tabloidy. Does need a little bit of work, but absolutely no reason to delete this notable individual. Cindlevet (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Never done this before. I landed on this page because I wanted to read about Wayne Shaw on Wikipedia and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Not in the public interest to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vieira4 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Like the person above, I was looking for concise information on Wayne Shaw and thought Wikipedia would be the place to find this. Again, not in the public interest to delete. Koptor (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass GNG to me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for a National League footballer, he has significant coverage. And the pie eating incident is also generating him significant coverage, and so he just about passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because if he not passed by sportive criteria, he passed by GNG. Strange, if people looking for article about person and can't find it in Wikipedia. But maybe it's more "wide" question for "lovers od deletions"--Noel baran (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pie-eating incident has made him a nationally notable figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.5.17 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear-cut case of WP:ONEEVENT. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT JMHamo (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic case of WP:BLP1E. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note While the name of the league he played in is National League (division), don't be confused into thinking it's the top tier of English football. In fact, it's the fifth tier, so WP:NFOOTY isn't satisfied. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he plays in a 5th tier league. That is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pie-eating incident has made him somewhat notable especially since The Football Association is on his case about Betting. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while article does fail WP:NFOOTY I also belive that it passes WP:GNG because of the large amount of media coverage the subject gained. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply either as people were talking about this footballer well before February 20, see here. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant WP:BLP1E case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:BLP1E... Giant Snowman 08:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Wayne has attracted significant notability in the popular press and in popular culture for a sustained period of time. Even prior to the pie incident he was gaining growing attention TF92 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the pie eating and the subsequent betting/investigation case made it somehow reasonable to keep.--Preacher lad (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. And BLP1E looks like BLPIE, hehe. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems like a BLP1E case to me, due to the lack of significant coverage before this week. He's not notable as a footballer, and it's hard to argue that getting fired for eating a pie makes him notable. In some cases it's appropriate to turn a BLP1E into an article about the event, but here that would seem ridiculous - 2017 Sutton United pie incident? That just highlights the lack of notability. More appropriate would be a minor merge/redirect to Sutton United (or to Sun Bets, if we had an article on it). Robofish (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a merge, but if it were, wouldn't Who Ate All the Pies? be a more appropriate target? Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: It would if Piers Morgan's new version takes off! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this may have been BLP1E, if it weren't for his previous coverage. He got significant coverage the previous time Sutton fired him - [3]. And there was a comprehensive interview with him after he returned in 2015 [4]. At that point it was already arguably a weak keep. The recent coverage puts it well over the top. Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reports in weekly local newspapers hardly amount to "significant coverage" in terms of establishing notability. He has only had attention from reliable sources in regard to this one incident. Jellyman (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:GNG that precludes significant coverage in local weekly newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name to reflect the event itself. He is definitely not notable as a footballer, but there is no question that the pie-eating incident has generated significant coverage. It's already been dubbed "Pie-gate". An article on the event itself is more appropriate per BLP1E, which could look at the wider issue of betting in football. It's even been covered by the The National Law Review here. I don't see what's so wrong with 2017 Sutton United pie incident myself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:FOOTYN and unlikely to satisfy it in future. Incident can be mentioned in articles on Sutton, this season's FA Cup, football betting.... Jellyman (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nfitz and Inter&anthro Spiderone 12:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was the subject of nationwide news ("Piegate") maybe even worldwide news from sources like BBC as well (not just newspapers) I think it is definitely notable. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although he fails FOOTY, he easily passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep borderline WP:BLP1E, however, I think there is enough coverage before the pie-eating incident to take outside of that. The whole reason the betting incident took place was that he was a notably large goalkeeper. That is covered in the article here [5] and here [6] - both predate the match in question. Think of it this way - bets would not be offered on a non-notable person. Even if you don't agree, he would have to be at least quasi-notable for best to be offered. Otherwise, no one would bet because they would have literally no idea who the bet is talking about. The betting scandal from the pie eating incident put him over the top. It's WP:BLP1E and not WP:BLP2E (or maybe even WP:BLP1.5E). RonSigPi (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – passes WP:GNG. Valmi ✒ 04:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a pass of the GNG, because when view from that perspective, it fails ONEEVENT. The inclusiveness of the ATHLETE guidelines is so very broad, that it really takes somethign exceptional to be justified by the GNG in this field. DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Also per oneevent, which isn't even that significant. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It follows Wikipedia policies, It is also sourced very well. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject wouldn't satisfy the overly inclusive WP:NFOOTY. There is minimal coverage before this event, which makes this a WP:BLP1E. The reason we require multiple sources is so that we can have an NPOV article and the WP:BLP1E exists so that a biography doesn't give undue weight to certain events. The event itself is not really notable enough to have a separate article. Why should we then have a BLP? The article as it stands is essentially a WP:PSEUDO which I am not comfortable having on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While certainly not a concrete reason to keep the article, the article itself has received more than 119,000 views since it was created, including almost 50,000 views the day after the pie-eating incident (see here). Many DYK nominations don't even receive that amount of views. While of course a good portion of the views were from editors from this deletion discussion, at the same time I belive that this shows that there is a genuine interest in the subject of this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly surprising: people enjoy being entertained by trivia, whether it's on YouTube, the Daily Mail website, or what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 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.