Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraser Aird

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Aird

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

At this time player does not meet WP:GNG or meet relevant guidelines at WP:Footy as has not played in a fully pro league. Whilst Rangers players do overtime receive more coverage than other players at same level this player has yet to do so. Blethering Scot 19:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe He merits an article. Rangers are one of the biggest, most known, clubs in British football. It is an unusual situation where they are a professional team playing in an unprofessional league. The player is a regular in the squad and there is numerous newspaper and on-line coverage about him and his playing career so far for rangers. It is an unusual situation, but I think the article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The club he plays for notability is not in question, this player is. There is not enough coverage out there to prove he meets GNG which is all that matters in this case as he is at least two seasons away from meeting WP:Footy. We shouldnt make special cases for Rangers players and they should be subject to what is essentially the higher policy. Rangers players will over time gain higher coverage and should be created at a time when they have enough and not just for one event either.Blethering Scot 21:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. Blethering Scot 21:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete No reason at all to make an exception for Rangers, they no longer exist. The new club might have a big ground, but they are not a big club yet. No real indication of GNG, has played a few games, but doesn't seem to have received any greater level of coverage than may other young players who have only played a handful of games. Would be notable if Rangers were in the Premier league, but they aren't, so he is not. Fenix down (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Blethering Scot 21:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Please note there is a copy of the article at User:Johnelwaq/Sandbox4. Please make sure something is done to provide proper attribution to the copy when this AfD is closed. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL LA Kings 23 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC) — LA Kings 23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- GNG is a possibility, but it definitely doesn't pass NFOOTBALL, as the player does not play in a fully professional league. His club is the only professional club in its league (out of a total of 10)........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentUser:LA Kings 23 is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Gregoryat. Patken4 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck sake man, he plays for one of the most famous football clubs in the world 86.154.102.139 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and we shouldn't give Rangers-players a free pass to an article just because they play for a "big club". But we also have the general notability guideline, and with sources like this and this, I believe this article is close on "significant coverage in reliable sources". Mentoz86 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is highly subjective but its my believe he no where near it yet. Blethering Scot 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An awkward one this - he clearly plays for a highly notable team but in a division that doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL. I'd probably lean more towards keeping the article than deleting it, but the Rangers situation makes an interesting problem. The only other equivalent situation I can think of would be when ACF Fiorentina went bankrupt in 2002 and started again in the 4th tier. But even that doesn't work, because Serie C2 is a pro league. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having had specific articles about this individual published in multiple countries, it does seem to scrape WP:GNG, despite its apparent failure of individual project guidelines. Cloudz 679 07:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supposed to be a footballer, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The end. §FreeRangeFrog 20:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:GNG trumps WP:NFOOTBALL, not the other way around. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable fourth division footballer. If the newco Rangers club ever reach the SPL - and good luck to them - then maybe these guys can have articles. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:06, 24 November 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.