Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Hamme

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hamme (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)

Article about former footballer who made a total of 2 substitute's appearances (totaling less than 90 minutes of play) in France's fully-pro Ligue 2. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in English- and French-language sources is routine (database entries or transfer announcements). Jogurney (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 15:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 15:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 15:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 15:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG massively, so technically scraping by on WP:NFOOTBALL does not matter. GiantSnowman 07:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL. The criteria in the policy/guide does not reflect consensus. Until it is rewritten I have to vote that the player played in a fully pro league and satisfies the requirements. The only wiggle room I see is the word "Generally" in number 2 of NFOOTBALL. 2. 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. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – searches not coming up with any significant coverage to meet GNG. – Levivich 03:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It should be obvious that (a) the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources is fundamental to wikipedia and moreso in the case of biographies of living persons, (b) there is no coverage in reliable sources of this footballer at all, and (c) making two substitute appearances isn't some kind of free pass around the requirement for reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: To an ivoter like myself who uses WP:POLICY to guide, it appears that a handful of editors on these Footy AfDs have decided to come up with their own delete rationale which is not based on any policy. For instance: saying a player must meet both NFOOTBALL snd GNG to have an article is counter to policy. The actual policy is the subject must either meet GNG or the subject specific NFOOTBALL. My question is: why have we not codified this change in notability for WP:NFOOTBALL so that I can vote according to policy? Until we make an official change the votes on these AfDs just seem like Jury Nullification. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not say that. It says a person is “presumed” notable if they meet NFOOTY. A presumption is not a guarantee. The GNG is the most important guideline because it ensures our articles are verifiable: a core wikipedia principle. It is doubly important for biographies of living persons. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

So the question: if there is an un-codified delete rationale, why aren't we changing the policy. Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: “presumed”. If a person meets NFOOTY but there’s no coverage in reliable sources, we are entitled to, and in most cases should, rebut the presumption. That’s why we have AFD: to discuss; not to rule. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the next sentence after what you quoted in WP:N is:This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Also see, WP:NBIO#Additional criteria (... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.), WP:ATHLETE (... the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.), and a many past AfDs, most recently [1] and [2]. – Levivich 04:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited policy. This is an simply information WP:NBIO#Additional criteria and here it is complete.People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. ....a handful of editors who vote on these Footy AfDs have determined that NFOOTBALL subjects must pass additional standards - this is not in any policy that I can find. There are many examples of the contradictory policies/guidelines however on this subject I cannot find one. Additional hurdles are occasionally applied to actors. If an actor has not been in the news, some editors determine that they do not qualify. The actual policy for NFOOTBALL is clear, and all here agree that the subject passes that subject specific criteria, yet ivoters here and at other AfDs have set up additional hurdles. I think we should modify NFOOTBALL rather than ivote against policy. I will not waste any more of the editor's time on this, it is just my reading of policy. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under what definition of "policy" is WP:NFOOTBALL a policy, but WP:ATHLETE is not a policy? – Levivich 17:49, 2 August 2019 (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.