Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errington Kelly

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. Those advocating Keeping this article argue that the article subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG standards of notability. The three editors calling for Deletion disagree about this fact which is very common in these athlete biography AFD discussions. I've decided to not close as No Consensus as the Keeps have numbers on their side. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errington Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hmmm...I can't find any good sources, but you'd think with that many games for Peterborough there ought to be something. But there's nothing in newspaper archive or online. Will keep digging for the time being. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - let IAR/COMMONSENSE prevail. He has over 140 appearances in England's professional football league in the pre-internet age. Will there be additional significant sources out there? Yes. GiantSnowman 19:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per everything above. In addition, I found [1] as well as many many more sources on Newspapers.com. In addition, he definitely has many more offline sources having had an extensive fully pro career in the 1980s. Clearly was significant figure in English Football League. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right about offline sources etc but you know YouTube doesn't count. How about sharing some of those newspapers.com links so I can expand the article? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect -- per WP:RSPYT, YouTube videos originating from an official news organization account -- which this is -- inherit that organization's reliability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will keep it in mind for future. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -- I'm not sure how much this counts toward notability necessarily, but it is as reliable as the news outlet in this case. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interview, you know that doesn't count. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no restriction on sourcing stuff to interviews. More importantly, you ignore the comment was about newspapers.com. Gosh, one newspapers.com calls him the (Fourth) division's most dangerous striker (when he's on his game); which is hardly a routine comment. Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to you like nine times by now, sourcing to interviews is ok for non-controversial facts, but what subjects say in interviews cannot be used for notability because it is primary and non-independent. If you literally cannot understand that a person talking about himself is primary and non-independent then you should not be editing Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the use of it as a source, not notability - which is easily established with other material. Though common sense dictates that someone who the main-stream media is still interviewing a quarter-century later is notable - and while technically passing our (not) rules, it's a clear sign that there's little nominating the very well referenced article. Nfitz (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Listing a few sources from Newspapers.com as requested on my talk page: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE is completely irrelevant here; it does not apply to people. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 are you sure? Footballer articles are routinely (heh) deleted on the grounds of only having routine coverage. I've never heard anyone say it doesn't apply to people, but I could be wrong. I do feel that if this weren't the case, everyone to have ever played football at any level will be eligible for an article. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Additionally, bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarchOfTheGreyhounds, BeanieFan11 stands correct. Just follow the link he provided. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Routine' coverage does not, by definition, confer notability, as only 'significant' coverage does. GiantSnowman 15:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a policy or guideline. What is a guideline is NSPORT, which directly links to WP:ROUTINE multiple times when describing the type of coverage that is not deemed acceptable for notability determination. See, e.g., Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. And College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. And High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Additionally, hundreds of sportsperson AfDs have clearly affirmed "routine" as an accurate descriptor for the types of sources BF links above, and both he and gidonb know this, so pushing the claim that ROUTINE doesn't apply is actively disingenuous. JoelleJay (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you're right in that it is not an essay or guideline, it makes a completely valid point: why should the policies on events apply to people? It would not make sense to apply all of the other guidelines for other different things on people, so why the guidelines for events on people? NSPORT is a big load of garbage which has made 0 sense since the great deletionist destruction of 2022. And saying that the guidelines for events should not apply to people is not at all disingenuous (especially when the text of Wikipedia:Notability (people) doesn't mention "routine" once)! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT used WP:ROUTINE to define types of coverage ineligible for notability consideration long before the 2022 RfC. And WP:NBIO does link to ROUTINE: In addition, in cases like the Internet Movie Database, inclusion is routine for people in the associated domain and can therefore especially not be taken as evidence of notability, so clearly we do have guideline-level support for the concept as applied to people. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A single mention of routine, in a note, talking about a wiki-like database = "guideline-level support" for discounting valid newspaper sources on people because, for events, it wouldn't count as SIGCOV? I think not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you interpret our guidelines as applying literally only to the specific situations used as examples; good to know. For anyone else reading this, I'll mention that the salient part of the footnote isn't "IMDb bad" but rather its characterization of certain forms of people's coverage as "WP:ROUTINE", i.e., expected to exist for most members of a sufficiently indiscriminate group and therefore not indicative of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV per sources identified above. gidonb (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that participants can evaluate the significance of new sources located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No SIGCOV has been identified, so how many games he played has literally no bearing on meeting GNG. The newspaper clippings provided above are, as noted, interviews or otherwise routine match recaps, transactional news, and injury reports and should be disregarded the same way we would do with equivalent online coverage of someone in the internet era. Additionally, all but one are from the same hyperlocal newspaper, so even if they were significant we would only have one source contributing to GNG (the non-Peterborough Standard article is a quote-heavy announcement of a contract extension and doesn't count either). JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some sources have been found to pass WP:GNG. It is also likely that many more would exist for a player from the pre-Internet era, given the coverage found from the limited digitised sources from that era. Deleting this seems like a bias against pre-Internet era people. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After a lot of thought and searching through sources, I have to say delete. The only references found here are routine and local. I'm not sure it's a given there will be anything more substantial out there. Were newspapers of the time definitely running the kind of coverage we require for GNG? For example, dispassionate profiles or lower league players? Perhaps some good sourcing exists, perhaps it doesn't. The bottom line is, no one has been able to find something that says to me he is definitely notable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While I wouldn't say the current sourcing passes GNG (the "Kelly's chance" seems to be the only one that covers him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content"), I'll note that ROUTINE and locality of coverage are both completely irrelevant when determining the notability of a person. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Except for, ya know, the guideline governing notability of sportspeople: Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that if you keep going, and read the text of Wikipedia:ROUTINE it says "sports scores", not in-depth articles about a match. So "routine game coverage" is box-scores ... not in-depth articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)

  Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts Are you the type of editor who thinks the only news stories that can be considered "run-of-the-mill" are literally ones about bears in trees or local award-winners? Do you really just ignore every situation that isn't explicitly listed as an example in the guidelines? But even if that's the case, the text of WP:ROUTINE actually specifically names sports matches and press conferences as examples of routine events, so the applicability to NSPORT's guidance should be crystal clear without engaging in any advanced cogitation. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - good grief - in addition to the sources discussed above, he played in over 100 fully-professional matches. Sure, the one reference is an interview - common sense tells us that if he's still being interviewed about his career, by main-stream media, a quarter-century after his retirement, that he is of note. Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is enough substance and sourcing in the article now to satisfy WP:BASIC, which allows us to combine multiple independent sources to demonstrate notability. In particular: 2013 article in Coventry Telegraph, 1983 article in Sports Argus (Birmingham), and 1986 article in Peterborough Standard, mid-way through his Peterborough United career and providing a balanced summary of his ups and downs at the club until that point. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has non-trivial coverage in more than one independent source so meets GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to have plenty of references available. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:32, 24 September 2022 (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.