Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearghus Bruce

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. No successful argument that the subject meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fearghus Bruce

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

Contested prod where the rationale appeared to confuse whether the subject exists with notability. Subject just about passes WP:NFOOTY as he has played part of one game in a fully professional league but is not a first choice keeper and plays mainly in a non professional league for the reserves. Lack of substantial references means he fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL, and is young enough that I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt re:WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I understand why you would give the benefit of the doubt. Surely there are the level and quality of sources required by GNG or not? If this was someone who had played 5 or 6 games per season over the last few years, I could understand, sort of. But this is a guy who has played part of one game. I have no idea how you can assert notability on the basis of that. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference at the article it was a whole game, and he is still a young player, so isn't the point of the WikiProject to create articles for youngsters, even after their first game, and subsequently develop the articles as the individual's career develops? C 679 20:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But only if they fulfill GNG, surely? That is the primary notability guideline. You can't have a project creating guidelines like NFOOTY for use as cover when GNG isn't met, I have always understood NFOOTY to be the first step to establishing GNG, not a sticking plaster when there aren't really enough sources, but it would be nice to keep the article as he is a young player after all. I have no problem with this article being reproduced if and when this guy is a seasoned pro, but there is nothing here other than one appearance. It's not even like he is a very highly rated player who has been talked about at length as a prospect or has achieved great things at youth level. He has played one game, he has not featured at any international level, he is a third choice goalkeeper and the article explains at length the convoluted set of circumstances that effectively forced the mangers hand. I repeat myself, there is no way on earth this guy passes GNG, at the moment. As an additional point, I would ask Giant Snowman how he can possibly reconcile his comments above about benefit of the doubt for this player when he was happy to state that this player clearly failed GNG, having played only one pro game in the Hong Kong League, despite being several years younger than this player. That player was deleted on the grounds of GNG failure, I see no relative difference here. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for logical consistency then you're looking in the wrong place. That's the last thing that you'll find in any deletion discussion about football articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C679, we don't make decisions on the basis of what might happen in the future. The point of topic-specific notability guidelines is that they are supposed to identify subjects for which there will almost certainly be already existing significant coverage in independent reliable sources, even if if such coverage can't be found by simple Internet searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 appearance does not confer notability. Even though that is the wording of WP:NFOOTY, there are plenty of cases in the last year where articles about footballers has been deleted despite passing NFOOTY, because of the failure of WP:GNG. This footballer fails GNG, and that is the most important notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 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.