Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer born 1990)

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. Ironholds (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cook (footballer born 1990)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the usual caveats that it's too soon as he has yet played a senior game in a fully professional league. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. -- KTC (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Technically wouldnt he be considered notable for playing in the FA Cup against Rotherham United F.C. as said here [1]. We have done this in the past with players who have not played in league but only cup against fully-professional teams. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies if both clubs play in a fully pro league, which is not the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Confident it will pass WP:GNG if given the chance. To many hastily removed article's are gunned down before they are given enough time to achieve notability. I am sure with a good day's research this article could achieve that FishyPhotos (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD doesn't close for a few days. If you believe it's possible to find sufficient sources to demonstrate it meet WP:GNG, then you're more than welcome to look for it. -- KTC (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass any criteria. You may have a day or two to get a source though. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am adding quite alot of content in regards to WP:GNG also as an example, the Jamie Vardy article was allowed since July 2011 and he had never played in a fully pro league, the circumstances only changed in the past few weeks when he signed for Leicester City. Nelly_1975 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yan Klukowski, Richard Brodie, Jamie Vardy in my opinion all fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL also having never played in a professional league, yet these article's were turned a blind eye! What makes these articles so different to the rules? Nelly_1975 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right, feel free to nominate them and see what people think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will see what the outcome is on this first, if this is deleted, I will trawl through every non-league player and see how other people like their own hardwork being put at risk of being destroyed -- Nelly_1975 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you are saying you'll disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am saying similar article's should have some level of consistency in terms of equality of the article's in question, I must admit I had not read the Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point page until you thankfully pointed it out to me, having read this, I will not nominate any article's for deletion just to prove a point of equality, I hope turning a blind eye doesn't break any other rule noting in my previous comments regarding Yan Klukowski, Richard Brodie, Jamie Vardy -- Nelly_1975 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Nelly, personally I feel the boundaries should come up for discussion as the fifth level of English football is now predominatley a league full of professional footballers. If it was up to me, if you play in this league and have a professional contract that should be good enough for notability, but who am I to speak? That's only my opinion. My frustration, as a Grimsby Town fan, as well as my club being relegated is that I can no longer create, build and maintain player article's for my clubs players. For example Andi Thanoj and Shaun Pearson are two professional first team players at Grimsby who are supposedly ineligible for article's because they haven't played in the Football League. If someone agree's and is willing to bring it up in discussion then great, but I doubt many will agree. Footballgy (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree with the other two guys Nelly Footballgy (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I also have to agree with my friend Fishy. JesperBlomqvist (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The post above was made by an editor with only two other edits in the past year. This user may be a sock- or meatpuppet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Richard Brodie is now notable as he has played in a fully professional league (league 2) for one season, however technically Jaime Vardy does not merit an article which in my opinion is ridiculas as the conferance should be classed as a notable league due to the number of notable players in the league. Seasider91 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, Richard Brodie has not made an actual appearance in league 2, he was loaned out to Fleetwood for the whole season, that article has been on the go since February 2008 and no one pulled it up-- Nelly_1975 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 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.