Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leigh Veidman

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Veidman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, as he has never played nor coached in a fully-pro league. Seems to fail WP:GNG: the only independent coverage I've found on him is this, everything else is just routine transfer coverage. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless I'm mistaken, he has been (interim) head coach in the USL Championship, which is an FPL. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leigh is currently the caretaker manager of OKC Energy FC which is the a fully professional league, the second division in the United States USL Championship and as he won more in 4 matches than the last manager did in 2 years, there is a decent chance he will retain the role of manager in years to come 405footballfan (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. I didn't notice that he was interim coach at Energy (I thought he was assistant coach). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has just started out as manager/head coach, would expect coverage to increase the more matches he leads. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources: [1], [2]. Sure there's some more in the mountains of recent Google News hits that I haven't had time to trawl through. And as a new head coach, the number of good sources is likely to increase. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:NFOOTBALL does not supersede WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL, or any of the other sports-specific notability guidelines in WP:ATHLETE, is not an automatic notability pass per WP:ATHLETE own FAQ at the top of its page.
Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A2: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?
A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)
So in short, if nobody here can come up with sources that shows the subject passes WP:GNG then the article should be deleted per Wikipedia community consensus. Arguments that he could have coverage in the future are invalid per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Alvaldi (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaldi You do know that posting exactly the same text at every sport AfD, instead of actually looking at the merit of the sources in the article, is not a valid criteria. Stop with your WP:WIKILAWYERING, and start actually explaining why you think people do or don't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: As I stated in my comment, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. And if you want me to go deeper into that, then that is fine. The only significant coverage presented here that goes into the subject is this and then there is this in the article itself [3] which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Out of curiosity, will you be asking other !voters to explain their !votes further? Alvaldi (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi: Not trying to stir the pot, I just want to explain my thinking. Leigh is as notable as any other head coach in the USL correct? He is listed as the manager on the official club website and on the USL site. Leigh is mentioned and discussed as the manager on ESPN broadcasts and even shown on the touchline of ESPN, a national sports media company. If we say he isn't notable because the google algorithm doesn't pull up every single place his name is mentioned on the internet or traditional television media, then we would have to purge Wikipedia of every USL manager. If that were to happen, then we have deleted articles of almost all head coaches of a fully professional league and the second division of football in one of the largest countries in the world. Many other users in this section have deemed the article and its subject notable enough to keep, even the user who first recommended for deletion noted that they overlooked his role as head coach that gave him notability. Again, these are just my thoughts, I'm not trying to step on any toes. 405footballfan (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@405footballfan:No pots being stirred and no toes being stepped on, I am more than happy to have a discussion on the matter. First and foremost, the Wikipedia community consensus is pretty clear on that being a coach or a player in a FPL does not make the individual automatically notable. What makes them notable is if they get significant coverage in multiple publications (two articles from one publications count as one towards GNG) that are independent of the subject (no team or league websites) over some period of time (short blurb of coverage over a month won't do). So even if we believe the individual should or might have the coverage we still have to prove he has it for the article to be kept. The three above keep !votes fail to do that by 1. claiming that the subject passes WP:GNG without pointing to any sources to back that up 2. state that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL but leaving out the fact he still has to pass GNG per WP:ATHLETE or 3. state that he might have sources in the future which clearly goes against Wikipedia's community consensus per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. (Note that User:Joseph2302 later did add two sources to his answer). For a modern day individual in an english speaking country, it is usually fairly easy to find that coverage if he has recieved it. If certain head coaches in the USL fail to generate the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then unfortunately yes, their articles should be deleted. But WP:GNG is not a ridiculously high bar, generally it is enough to show a subject has 3-4 good significant sources for them to survive AfD. I've only been able to find two, from The Des Moines Register [4] and from The Oklahoman [5]. User:Joseph2302 does link to an article on a website called oursportscentral.com which does not look like a major publication. If Veidman is truly notable, then there should not be a problem to find a couple of other significant sources about him somewhere. Alvaldi (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi: Clicking the news tab at the top of this page brings up various news publications that cover Leigh and his acts as a head coach such as Tulsa World. [6]. One that is also notable, I would believe, is from the USL Championship publication staff.[7] That is 4 notable sources now in favor of Leigh Veidman's noterity. 405footballfan (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@405footballfan: The one from the USL Championship publication staff unfortunately constitutes as a WP:PRIMARY source (primary sources are for instance team or league websites) and as such does not go towards GNG. It was also only a WP:TRIVIAL mention on top of that. The Tulsa World is a secondary source but Veidman only has a brief one-line mention that goes against WP:TRIVIAL. I did go through the rest of the Google hits and also looked for him on Newspapers.com but again only found trivial mentions of him. Alvaldi (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi: Is a podcast with OSG Sports, a podcast produced by award winning sports journalists [8] where he is the main topic notable? [9] Or is this other podcast called “Behind the touchline with George Zambrano,” who is a FA level 1 talent identification scout and a football agent, in the WP refs link notable? [10] 405footballfan (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@405footballfan: Honestly, both of those podcasts seem to be rather minor. I couldn't really find any independent info on them and judging by their social media accounts those are fringe publications. Alvaldi (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi: and this article from OKC Fox 25 [11] which is literally titled “Energy FC will have a new coach” referring to Veidman taking over as head coach while Energy start to look at new possibilities, which is written in the article isn’t enough? It was sourced in the wiki article itself. This is my last attempt to try to prove notability. He seems to have enough coverage. You can Google and find his name and pictures from multiple sources, even on transfermarkt (which I know isn’t a source used for Wiki notability but as a football fan would know, that’s massive). He’s on television broadcast every week when the team plays. This is a new age of media where newspapers are dying and television and especially social media are taking over. I always assume good faith, and I know that you’re trying to keep to Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously it’s “whataboutism” but there are various articles with less sources and less notability. I believe Wikipedia is meant to be a source of knowledge and that if an article is well sourced and true, it should remain. Especially when it passes it’s subject specific notability, and obviously WP:GNG supersedes Wikiproject Football, but it’s worth noting. Again, it’s not like you can’t readily find out who Leigh Veidman is from a simple Google search. 405footballfan (talk) 13:17,17 July 2021 (UTC)

The OKC Fox 25 article is the type of article that gets classified as a routine signing article. They are fine for sourcing a certain transfer in an Wikipedia article but generally does not constitude as a significant coverage when it comes to AfD's. I completely understand that this is frustrating as I have been at your end in a similar conversation early in my Wikipedia days. Veidman's article might very well be kept, depends on the closing admin, but note that if no more significant sources are added to it then there is a good chance that it will be nominated again for AfD. I highly recommend having always at least WP:THREE good sources when creating an article, it is more often than not enough for it to stay out of AfD. Best of luck. Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2021 (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.