Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Swindlehurst
Source: 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 delete. v/r - TP 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Luke Swindlehurst (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)
PROD contested by
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails ]
- Delete Fails ]
- Merge content into Preston North End W.F.C. It frustrates me that we cut ourselves off from allies/ contributors by snootily deleting their pages. The women's football taskforce is flatlining because all our best editors have been driven away by the project's biased and discriminatory notability guidelines. Luke Swindlehurst is a notable manager in English women's football, which has its own coverage in things like She Kicks and Women's Soccer Scene. As an analogy we wouldn't delete WWE wrestlers because they don't get in The Guardian or the BBC - they have their own media. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could always try expanding the article with the aforementioned sources to try to ascertain notability through WP:GNG. It's not only The Guardian or the BBC that are considered "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (from WP:GNG). Since the subject has never played or managed in a fully pro league he doesn't, at the moment anyway, pass WP:NFOOTBALL. But WP:GNG is a wider and more inclusive way of showing the importance of a subject, and it's possible the sources could be out there (although this hasn't been accomplished with the article in its current version). Mattythewhite (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the guidelines Matty. Are you pretending the sources already linked are trivial? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having gone through the sources each appears to be routine sport coverage. The first two are profiles, the third, fourth and fifth are declarations of the subject taking up positions at clubs and the sixth is a self-published club history. None of that is sufficient for the article to pass WP:GNG. So I'm not pretending they're trivial, I'm sincerely of the belief they are. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean by routine, but I think they all amount to significant coverage. Per the GNG "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." Admittedly not all are secondary sources, but that is not a requirement. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having gone through the sources each appears to be routine sport coverage. The first two are profiles, the third, fourth and fifth are declarations of the subject taking up positions at clubs and the sixth is a self-published club history. None of that is sufficient for the article to pass WP:GNG. So I'm not pretending they're trivial, I'm sincerely of the belief they are. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the guidelines Matty. Are you pretending the sources already linked are trivial? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could always try expanding the article with the aforementioned sources to try to ascertain notability through WP:GNG. It's not only The Guardian or the BBC that are considered "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (from WP:GNG). Since the subject has never played or managed in a fully pro league he doesn't, at the moment anyway, pass WP:NFOOTBALL. But WP:GNG is a wider and more inclusive way of showing the importance of a subject, and it's possible the sources could be out there (although this hasn't been accomplished with the article in its current version). Mattythewhite (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete but find better citations and references. I agree that this subject has notability in their field of women's football. dorkinglad (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.88.142 (talk) [reply]
- Delete - Per WP:GNG could be met.]
Regarding the WWE comparison: there are a large number of magazines, websites, books and news sources which cover wrestling and are considered acceptable sources so the analogy does not work. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:51, 22 May 2012 (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.