Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Massey

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. Scott Mac 09:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Massey

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

By virtue of once playing four minutes in a professional league, this candidate probably passes WP:ATHLETE (and its lengthy but equally useless successor WP:NSPORTS). I'm nominating for two reasons. Firstly on the grounds of WP:BLP1E. He literally had five minutes of fame, and given that he has no squad number, that is unlikely to change in the near future. Secondly, it is a long established (although often ignored) principle at AfD that the general notability guideline overrides field-specific sub-guidelines such as WP:NSPORTS, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he meets that. --W F C-- 09:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --W F C-- 09:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Delete per WP:REALITYTV. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: may marginally pass WP:NSPORTS, but certainly not the more important WP:GNG. However, as the case of Ben Kudjodji showed, there is absolutely no chance that this article will be deleted. Although on the off chance that it is, there are literally hundreds of articles about players who have played four minutes or less that will also have to go. Big Dom 09:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, if this is non-admin closed it will go straight to DRV. AfD is not a vote; for their opinions to be given much consideration, contributors need to justify their positions with guidelines or policy, and where appropriate explain why people who have a different interpretation might be wrong. --W F C-- 09:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. You and I do not always agree, but I think we both know that ATHLETE and now NSPORTS are often abused at AfD. Big Dom 09:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet incident the other day aside, I don't think we really disagree that much. We just have two extremely different ways of trying to achieve the same thing; a more credible notability guide for footballers than the one we have. --W F C-- 10:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Nobody could say that either of our methods is wrong, and we do share a common goal. It's a pity that neither of us seems to be making much headway though. Not sure what you mean by the sockpuppet incident, but I'm sure it was something and nothing? Big Dom 10:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. --W F C-- 10:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking it would be worth trying incubation for a few months. WP:BLP1E is a policy which overrules WP:NSPORTS, probably leading to a delete outcome as things stand. However, the new season is almost ready to start, and he may well play more games in it, which would overcome this barrier and leave him firmly notable. As such, incubation is probably a good way forward. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"leave him firmly notable" – no, it absolutely wouldn't. Passing NSPORTS does not guarantee that a subject is notable; the guideline page states that quite clearly in the first paragraph. The only way a footballer can be firmly notable is if they are significantly covered in reliable sources. Big Dom 18:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thee are various ways of interpreting the guideline, but the Association football bit says that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." I took that to mean that passing GNG isn't necessary for notability in this case, so an article could be created once BLP1E was no longer an issue. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much point in incubation. Nobody is arguing for deletion on the quality of the article (the simple fact is that he's played so little football that nobody has bothered to write about his earlier life yet). As for BLP1E, it says:

...if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

He doesn't have a first team squad number, so as far as I see it he is likely to remain low-profile. Any argument to the contrary is WP:CRYSTAL in my opinion. If he were loaned out it would still be WP:CRYSTAL. But in that instance it could more credibly be argued that he is likely to become a higher profile individual, and therefore incubation might be the way to go. For what it's worth I doubt he will be loaned out, because he is still a schoolboy at the Harefield Academy [1]. --W F C-- 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, he technically passes WP:ATHLETE, but unlike Ben Kudjodji, his pro career is not yet over...Giant Snowman 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL for the fallacy of that argument. The fact that he has not been given a Watford squad number for 2010-11 and is indeed going to be studying at Harefield Academy (a bona fide school) weakens that approach yet further. --W F C-- 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massey does have a squad number - 39[2] - so please stop repeating that he doesn't. And the fact that he is studying at the Harefield Academy is irrelevant to first team prospects: "the Hornets first and second year scholars also attend for a day-and-a-half, even if they are part of Malky Mackay’s first team plans."[3] Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to the official site is an old link, as evidenced by the fact that players such as Jay DeMerit, Nathan Ellington and Will Hoskins are in the picture. This is the current state of play. He has not been given a number this season, and that's only likely to change when he is in contention for at least a place on the bench. Secondly, while Harefield has no impact on a player's first team prospects at Watford, the commitment to ensure that young professionals continue to attend does substantially reduce the chances of a school-age player going out on loan, which is the point I was trying to make above. --W F C-- 21:45, 23 July 2010 (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.