Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Macleod (footballer)

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 no consensus. Macleod doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY in its current wording, and I don't see the arguments for an exemption for Rangers as being particularly strong. NFOOTY is already an inclusive guideline, as it allows us to have articles on players who would not otherwise pass WP:GNG; to allow further exceptions based on clubs' histories seems to me to run contrary to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This leaves us with the possibility of whether Macleod satisfies the GNG directly. I saw strong opinions on either side, but ultimately no consensus as to whether the sources in the article and listed in the debate consist of significant coverage or not. Despite arguments that the coverage about Macleod was merely routine, I didn't find the "keep" arguments to be easily dismissable. Editors should feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Macleod (footballer)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lewis MacLeod (footballer)
• Articles for deletion/Lewis Macleod (footballer)
• Articles for deletion/Lewis Macleod (footballer) (2nd nomination)

Lewis Macleod (footballer) (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)

Article is about a footballer who fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL. It was already deleted in August via AfD so I nominated it for speedy deletion via WP:G4 which was declined by an admin with the comment Not at all the same as before who failed to inform me. But it still fails both guidelines. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The deline of the speedy was wrong. GiantSnowman 14:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree, the speedy should have stayed and this AfD should not be happening now but it is and this article fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Still fails WP:GNG, still fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Still fails WP:GNG and is a long way off passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Not a huge difference between this and the original.Blethering Scot 16:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Absurd to suggest player does not pass WP:GNG. Sgt Elvan (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? There are 8 references. 5 of the references are match reports, those are normal reports. 2 of the other references are just profiles... 1 of which dont even work. Only 1 reference really helps but that is it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The player has extensive bespoke coverage in Scotland's two mass market newspapers Daily Record, Scottish Sun. There is a wider issue here which relates more to a point raised previously. Like them or not, Rangers clearly are a special case as regards notability. For me, the notability of a Rangers first team player, in terms of WP:GNG, has barely dropped one iota since their resurrection in the Third Division. In my opinion only, a current Rangers first team player is still more notable than any SPL player outwith Celtic that is not a Scotland international by this measure. Not saying that's the way it should be, but as I see it, that's the way it is. Sgt Elvan (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - He's a footballer, so of course there are going to be many match reports, especially when he's just starting his career. Is it better for there to be no references at all? He even scored yesterday and will be playing in the upcoming qualification round for the 2013 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship. --Gunk 78(talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, both dont count. He is a lower level player and playing in a qualifier will not change that. If what you are saying about the match-reports is true then I would have around 500 players from the Goa Professional League that are notable even though by the guidelines given they are not notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that, but what's the difference between Lewis and players in the third tier of English football? What can we do to improve the article? --Gunk 78(talk) 07:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The third tier in England is a fully professional league so players are covered by WP:NFOOTBALL which does not apply to the Scottish Third Division. Keep trying to dig up references such as the two I listed above to look towards fulfilling WP:GNG. The player is notable by this measure in my opinion, but consensus is the key and obviously there is work to do. Would like however for someone from the project to explicitly state why Macleod does not, in their opinion, pass WP:GNG. Sgt Elvan (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Absolute no-brainer. The player is now the specific subject of national media articles and a first team regular for one of the best supported (home attendance) football teams in Britain. Guidelines do not prohibit exceptions in exceptional circumstances. The case of Rangers FC - a massive club in a small division - is exceptional, and Lewis Macleod likewise becomes an exceptional case to other non-professional league players. Gefetane (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• and where is the policy/guidelines that state that? Nowhere. GiantSnowman 19:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not a G4 speedy as some have said above; since that AfD, Macleod's career has moved on considerably. He had never played for the Rangers first team at the time of the first AfD. Since then he has started every league game Rangers have played. Ordinarily, playing in the Scottish Third Division would not result in a player passing WP:GNG. But Rangers are not an ordinary Third Division team. Their activities achieve saturation coverage in the sports sections of Scottish media. One size fits all application of WP:NFOOTY is inappropriate in this case. When as a sportsman your name makes up the first two words of an article in The Scotsman ([1]), its a sure sign that WP:GNG is met. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But how? Look at the references. Almost all of them are match reports for youth internationals and player profiles. If this guy is given keeps then I might as well create articles for players in the USL Premier Development League. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Some more examples of coverage: Macleod signed a new contract a couple of weeks ago, coverage of that includes This Daily Record piece about him and him alone, plus a number of stories in which he was very prominent e.g. BBC Glasgow Evening Times. This is a different order of magnitude to the usual level of coverage for someone playing in that division, it is more akin to someone playing at a higher level like Andre Wisdom. I'm not suggesting Rangers players should be given a free pass, but when a team gets gates of 40,000 and has 20 league games a season shown by the UK's two main sports broadcasters ([2]), then those associated with it deserve a closer examination than a dismissive "fails WP:NFOOTY" type comment. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not keen on making Rangers a special case because they still play in a league that is not fully professional, and this guy fails WP:NFOOTBALL. But he patently passes WP:GNG, beyond simple match reports. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is one of the exceptions that breaks the usual rule. And I'm saying this as a leaning deletionist who's usually against the silly guidelines whereby a player instantly gets an article after playing one league cup game for a League Two club etc. Rangers are one of the two best supported clubs in Scotland (one of the best supported clubs in Europe). Any regular player for them will likely be all over national news regardless of the level the club play at. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - clearly fails WP:NSPORTS but I can't see any evidence online that he meets WP:GNG. There are a few mentions of him in match reports and by stats sites. If he has received significant coverage in offline sources, proof is required. Hack (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Believe this is just the sort of article where WP needs to move with the times. Things change, a major club has been placed in a non-pro league. This does not detract from the fact that Rangers are an important and notable club. Players who play for them are notable. WP:NFOOTY says certain players are 'presumed notable'. It doesn't say others can't be.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete – good job, people favoring keep, for showing us how the player "clearly" passes GNG. And why would they, match reports and player profiles is totally non-routine coverage. And woot woot for the Scottish Third Division being fully pro. Except it's not, and the coverage on him isn't enough to satisfy GNG. – Kosm1fent 06:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • On a serious note, this creates a dangerous slope; whoever thinks that a club playing in a low division is "big" enough, they will be totally free to create articles about footballers failing both GNG and NFOOTY... – Kosm1fent 06:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the real world where Rangers are a big club with massive support and worldwide interest. If not why would ESPN choose to show their games against Annan and Berwick? If you think 'big' clubs don't get and deserve more coverage than others, read the papers and watch satellite TV. WP should reflect that.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Where are the sources proving his notability? Just being name-checked a few times doesn't prove anything. Hack (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • As above - When as a sportsman your name makes up the first two words of an article in The Scotsman ([3]), its a sure sign that WP:GNG is met. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Except it's not, as match reports are considered routine coverage and he is only mentioned in the beginning because he scored a goal. Much like most match reports on the planet. – Kosm1fent 09:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I suspect this may be the first time I've ever disagreed with Oldelpaso, but I do on When as a sportsman your name makes up the first two words of an article in The Scotsman, its a sure sign that WP:GNG is met. If said article in The Scotsman were a piece focussing on Mr Macleod, or even a feature mentioning him as an example of young players getting their chance sooner rather than later in Rangers' current circumstances, then maybe. But it isn't. That opening sentence reads "Lewis Macleod and Robbie Crawford both claimed their first goals for the club as Rangers moved to within a point of the Irn-Bru Third Division summit with a win over Montrose." That's naming the goalscorers in a match report, and isn't a sure sign of anything GNG-related. I'm not arguing against the idea that coverage of Rangers players may well make them a special case, just that it takes more than his name opening a match report to indicate that this particular player meets GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Rangers are a "big club"? WP:POV. Playing for them (but nobody else in the league) gives you automatic notability? WP:UNDUE. GiantSnowman 08:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment 49,118 people seem to think so (and that's only one game). A figure which makes many Premier league attendances look weak.([4]). Also FIFA 13 a game a demo of which was downloaded a record 1.99 million times within three days of issue saw fit to negotiate a new contract just to include Rangers.[5]. Yes automatic notability for players of a club this size where interest, attendances, reporting, club membership and the history of the club matter more than the one WP fact that they are not in a pro-league.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Citing computer games as evidence of notability- really? GiantSnowman 10:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Please read again - You asked if Rangers were a big club. The cite of a computer game addresses this along with other citations. It was not supposed to show the notability of this player but the impact of the club due to its stature - but guess you knew this?!!--Egghead06 (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortuantely, "WP facts" matter here, and nothing you wrote automatically confers notability about a footballer playing in such a club. What I've learnt from my time here is that Scotland is a land with a plethora of available news sources – if there is no suitable coverage on a player (and they fail NFOOTY), then they shall not have an article, no matter how "big", well supported (or promoted?) a club is. – Kosm1fent 11:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - There is nothing beyond routine coverage of this player in any reliable sources, so he doesn't pass WP:GNG, and since the Scottish Third Division is not pro, his appearances in that division do not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY. Furthermore, to claim that Rangers are an exception because they are a big club is to assume that the current Rangers is the same as the Rangers that existed until last season, which has yet to be proven. – PeeJay 11:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again I must correct you, all 3rd party sources that do make DIRECT reference to the history/founding date of "the current Rangers" are clear that it is the same club: Consider the presiding League governing body, the national commercial TV news site, the two best-selling national newspapers Scottish Sun and Daily Record. Do you have any direct sources refuting this position, or was your comment above purely a gut instinct? Gefetane (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Evidently, Lewis Macleod satisfies those exact criteria here. And here. And here. Oh, and here. I am surprised editors commenting on WP:GNG managed to miss these articles. Gefetane (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How are WP:ROUTINE articles on sports players signing contracts examples of "significant coverage"? GiantSnowman 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If your premise that every Scottish 3rd Divison player who signed a new contract ROUTINELY was the subject of their own interview in a national newspaper, you might have a point. The reality is that evidently isn't the case. This makes your point about WP:ROUTINE invalid and therefore of no relevance. Gefetane (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

One interview with a tabloid newspaper. Brilliant. GiantSnowman 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But there is clearly MORE than one interview, as has been shown above in a list that is certainly not exhaustive. Please be consistent, should Rangers be treated as a 3rd Division club meaning national newspaper interviews are certainly NOT "routine", or are they in fact a club of far greater profile, justifying an exception to WP:NFOOTY for their more prominent players? Which is it in your opinion? Gefetane (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

it is the same poor-quality news pieces being repeated over and over again - there is nothing of note here. I suggest you read WP:GNG very carefully. Rangers play in a semi-pro league; playing in that league does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL, and giving them some kind of special pass just because of their history violates WP:BIAS and WP:UNDUE. Plenty of teams have gone from a top-level league to much lower leagues. GiantSnowman 13:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your subjective views on the quality of the journalism is a very weak defence of your WP:ROUTINE point, which was the only thing you could offer to undermine the fact that numerous national media coverage of a 3rd Division footballer constitutes "significant coverage" according to WP:GNG. Gefetane (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:ROUTINE? It quite clearly says "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." GiantSnowman 13:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE refers separately to (i) Sports. ie: Routine sports coverage (results, reports etc.) and (ii) Tabloid journalism. ie, non-notable, sensationalist "human interest" coverage. Bundling these two together and implying that a tabloid football article does not confer notability is clearly not specified by WP:ROUTINE. Sgt Elvan (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that sports journalism isn't allowed, and tabloid journalism isn't allowed, but sports tabloid journalism is fine? Ridiculous. GiantSnowman 14:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A pointlessly obtuse reply. Where did I say this? Read what I said again. WP:ROUTINE refers to three separate aspects: announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism. There is greater than routine sports coverage such as results and reports for this player. There is greater than routine tabloid coverage for this player, unless you wish to suggest otherwise. Every player/article must be judged on his/its own merits and the statement that sports tabloid journalism is "not fine" is not supported in any way by WP:ROUTINE. Sgt Elvan (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Routine interviews never justify notability in whatever league. – Kosm1fent 13:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, are we to assume that all Scottish Premier League players are solely notable via WP:FOOTY and not via WP:GNG? If this is not the case, then where has it been shown conclusively that the level of coverage to confer notability has dropped by any significant degree? It seems extraordinary to describe the coverage referenced above as WP:ROUTINE, it could scarcely be more non-routine. Sgt Elvan (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

They don't need GNG to justify notability, but we assume they do. If a routine interview after a contract renewal is the best a player who doesn't meet NFOOTY can do, then their article is a good candidate for deletion. – Kosm1fent 13:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In the world of WikiProject Football, is this extent of coverage in the highest circulation print media considered routine? And why assume notability for other SPL players if no other reliable sources other than "routine" articles exist? Surely the project can do better than huddle in a corner clinging on to WP:FOOTY for survival? Sgt Elvan (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If deleted, surely someone will restart the page in a few weeks when Lewis has more reliable press coverage. --Gunk 78(talk) 14:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If deleted, the article can be restored at the click of a button if he plays in a fully-pro league or receives enough significant coverage. In the meantime, I could suggest incubating this in an editor's userspace so that the article can be improved, ready to be brought back into mainspace. GiantSnowman 14:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I believe this should be salted until the page can be restored. All we need are other people seeing him in action in a 3rd division match and quickly creating the page. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman I respect your viewpoint but I don't find it convincing so we will agree to disagree on the matter. Clearly the case of a club of Rangers' size and profile in the 3rd Division is exceptional.

The question is whether Wikipedia is flexible enough to adapt to these unprecedented circumstances, or must remain rigidly orthodox in the application of 'guidelines' adapted for the mundane and ordinary.

Should a high profile player at Rangers, playing in front of 50,000 crowds, in matches broadcast live around the world, receiving personal coverage from national media organisations, be restricted by a Wikipedia guideline intended to prohibit articles for the likes of Billy McBloggs turning out for Meadowbrae Rovers FC in front of one man and his dog? I think not, but am more than happy to let others decide. Gefetane (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the size or importance of the club - this is about determining whether the subject of an article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hack (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And for the main the notability starts and ends with 'does he play in a pro-league'. Plays for one of the biggest clubs in Britain whose games are regularly televised and watched by home crowds of 45,000-50,000 but are not in a pro-league = non-notable. Comes on in the 93rd minute for Accrington Stanley fails to touch the ball and is never heard of again = notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

NFOOTBALL states you have to play in a fully-pro league - he does not. GNG states you have to have received significant coverage - he has not. Nowhere in policy or guidelines does it say that you are notable if you play for a club that some people think is "one of the biggest clubs in Britain" - complete and utter POV, might I add. You are also showing absolute ignorance of NFOOTBALL with your Accrington Stanley comparison. GiantSnowman 15:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

To paint the "big club" view of Rangers as "complete and utter POV" is itself a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. Match attendances, tv audiences, media coverage, wage bills, history, turnover, all objective, quantifiable evidence - true regardless of opinion - in support of such a conclusion. You can cling to a rigid, inflexible application of WP:FOOTY guidelines if you wish, but to deny the exceptional nature of Rangers status within the 4th tier of Scottish Football is surely an abuse of common sense too far. Gefetane (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. If Man Utd had to play in front of 15,000 people would they suddenly be a 'small club'? If Hamilton Accies managed to get 50,000 spectators thanks to brilliant marketing, would they suddenly be a 'big club'? Wage bills - if the chairman wins the lottery and Accies decide to double everyone's wages, are they suddenly twice as big as before? It is nothing but opinion. GiantSnowman 16:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about your make-believe examples, I'm talking about Rangers Football Club in the 4th tier of Scottish Football. If your opinion is that the size of a club relative to another one - even in the case of Rangers vs. the likes of East Stirling/Annan - is impossible to determine from a NPOV, you are, in this regard, very far removed from common sense.Gefetane (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You should have left it there - I politely suggest you strike your comment. GiantSnowman 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

To get away from accusations of comparing apples and oranges attracted by Egghead06's Accrington Stanley comparison, how about Barrie McKay as a directly comparable case? His career trajectory is almost identical to that of Macleod with one difference: he played 14 minutes of football for Rangers on the final day of last season, something that reports of that match typically use a single sentence to describe. Is the current application of WP:FOOTYN really so rigid as to mean that one single sentence of coverage is the difference between keep and delete? A sentence that, to read some of the comments here, might be described as WP:ROUTINE? Yes, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but I really fail to see a significant difference in coverage here. Bear in mind that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (of which WP:FOOTYN is part) grew out of Wikipedia:Notability (people), where it is listed under "additional criteria". There, it states Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Treating it as the Alpha and Omega strikes me as valuing the letter of a guideline over its spirit to an excessive degree. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Does McKay meet NFOOTBALL? Yes. Does he meet GNG? No. Should the article be deleted? No. Why? Because the objective of NFOOTBALL is to give breathing space i.e. it is assumed that a player in a FPL will meet have received enough coverage to meet GNG, and time should be allowed for that. If McKay never plays at a higher level and fades into obscurity, and there is no more coverage, then we would have to look at an AfD. GiantSnowman 16:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think ref #4 and #6 would satisfy GNG. I believe they are enough to keep the article, considering that he also (barely) passes NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 16:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And in #6 he gives a name check to Lewis Macleod.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Half a line about Macleod is not significant coverage. – Kosm1fent 18:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

McCay is 17. I dont know about you guys but when it comes to players who are 21 or under and pass NFOOTY but fail GNG I just leave it because they are still to young (in McCays case... very young) and are assumed to eventually meet GNG. Not every player will have a huge article at the age of 17. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why Rangers should be and ever will be a special case. They either meet NFOOTY which for two years they wont or they meet WP:GNG. Rangers players will receive higher levels of coverage than other third divisions that is no doubt but match reports will always be trivial coverage by nature so there has to be more to meet WP:GNG. I have got a lower threshold than most i have to say, however I'm not being swayed much here because the majority of the arguments here are either trying to say we should make a special case here because its Rangers, which is ludicrous or they are not very strong statements. Remember the article looked like this[6] which is exactly what it was like when deleted the first time, It was a clear speedy for most. The article now although far more informative does not meet WP:GNG. Rather than trying to argue special case which wont happen why not actually improve the article to show it meets GNG until then it should be deleted or userfied for improvement.Blethering Scot 00:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

oh and ive read through the sources, 18 of the 25 can totally be discounted for proving notability the others i would count towards are the ones talking around him signing new contract which is generally considered a trivial coverage although i don't totally discount it. Also I'm just not seeing enough coverage on different events that aren't match reports or go way beyond routine. I think as ive said all along alot of these young players ultimately after time will meet GNG no doubt, but until they do completely they should be treated like all the rest. I would prefer someone requested this be incubated and worked on it. At the end of the day if it was worked on properly maybe it could be done. Lets face it NFooty means nothing if an article can be proven to and clearly meets GNG, this article in its current state at this present time does not.Blethering Scot 00:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails the general WP:NSPORTS criteria as well as the football-specific notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG as the only coverage the subject has received beyond standard tabloid fare is in routine match reports. The case for Rangers exceptionalism is not supported by the lack of reliable sources. Hack (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What would reliable sources regarding "Rangers exceptionalism" be? A third party source stating the Club's league attendance is "the 16th best in Europe" perhaps? Or 55 times the combined average of their league rivals? One couldn't imagine a more convincing case for "Rangers exceptionalism" if one tried. The 16th best-attended club in EUROPE, and their star young player isn't on Wikipedia? Oh well, guidelines are guidelines are guidelines. If the users suffer, tough luck. Gefetane (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty simple proposition, prove that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - Gefetane, you've gone to great lengths to show how notable the club is, but not the player. Playing for a notable club does not mean you yourself are notable - if that was the case, we would have thousands of articles on lowly English non-league clubs. GiantSnowman 08:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's the verdict?27.154.208.20 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This discussion has gotten way off topic, and I suggest we stop discussing if Rangers are a big club or if MacLeod passes WP:NFOOTBALL, which is both pretty obvious imo. I think we should give some slack to these "amateurs" playing at the fourth tier in Scottish football, as they are playing for the biggest amateur side in the world (I guess we can agree on that), and still have a lot of media-coverage (even in Norwegian sources). If there are some footballers that doesn't pass NFOOTBALL who should have an article, the Rangers-players would be first in line, but I'm not saying that they should get a free pass just because they are playing for Rangers. When it comes to MacLeod, I'm not convinced that this article passes WP:GNG yet, although he is close. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia allow for flexibility in isolated cases regarding guidelines such as WP:NFOOTY? YES.

Is a club of Rangers FC's size (media profile, general notability, 16th highest home attendance in Europe, even wikipedia page hits, however you want to define it) playing in the 4th tier of Scottish football sufficiently exceptional to justify flexibility? YES.

Is Lewis Macleod a prominent player enough player? YES - started all 12 games.

This seems to be a debate between on one hand wikipedia principles of Common sense/flexibility, on the other hand strict enforcement of guidelines to the letter. I'll remain interested on which side wins through. Gefetane (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What i cannot understand is why you are determined to prove the notability of the club, which is in no doubt at all. NFooty isn't even relevant as he does not meet it, all that leaves is the guideline that matters GNG. If you want to make amendments to the footy guideline then raise it at WP:Footy. in regards GNG, if you actually work on the article then maybe you can prove he does meet it. And i agree with Mentoz he isnt far off GNG which is a point ive made about Rangers, which is that with time these players will likely meet GNG but that time should be given.Blethering Scot 18:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Non–notable Fourth Division footballer. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm widely seen as a deletionist when it comes to borderline players (I don't see myself as one, but others would put me in that camp). But even I think some of the rationales above are extreme. While I wouldn't go as far as to come off the fence and say that the player is notable, people who have argued delete need to have a long, hard think about the reasons they are giving. Some are suggesting that we completely disregard reliable match reports, appearances in televised games, and playing in front of tens of thousands of people as factors to at least consider when deciding if a player meets the GNG. I can see the argument for deletion, but not on those grounds.

  If we're seriously looking at deletion, I would actually be more comfortable with an IAR delete. It could be argued that deleting the minority of Rangers players who haven't played in a "fully-pro" league but might meet the GNG is preferable to opening ourselves up to allegations of pro-Rangers bias, and/or the floodgate to creations of non-notable players who have played at the same level of football. Perhaps for those reasons keeping this article is more trouble than its worth. But under the standards adhered to by some delete !voters above, a significant percentage of Football League players would not meet the GNG – a far larger percentage than I believe don't merit full-blown articles. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 09:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You could argue that keeping a players article because the club they play for is notable is an extreme view as well. Players should be given time to actually meet GNG and shouldn't be forced through on the basis the club is notable.Blethering Scot 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

How many players (with wikipedia pages) in the lower professional English leagues have, like Lewis Macleod, received person-specific articles in national newspapers? Not many I'd suggest. Any rule/guideline is bound to be undermined by an exceptional case every now and again - a club of Rangers' national/international profile in the 4th tier is exactly that. If a rule cannot be flexed on appropriate occasions, it is an ass. As far as I am aware, stringent adherence to guidelines is actively discouraged within Wikipedia. Why that message has bypassed so many in this discussion baffles me. Gefetane (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Can someone just answer this question... If Rangers were still in the Premier League would Macleod be playing for the first-team like he is now that they are in the 4th Division of Scottish Football?--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No - This is a completely different 'Rangers' who emerged from the ashes of the old club who are being liquidated. They had to enter at the bottom rung of the ladder because a Newco, as the name suggests, is a new club with no history. All Rangers' better players effected their egress when liquidatation wasn't staved off. Under 19 players like Macleod have been drafted in to fill the void, along with some anonymous journeymen. They are no more notable than whoever is waddling about for Darlington this season. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no argument about the subject failing WP:NFOOTBALL as it currently stands, and I'm not convinced that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS lets us change that guideline here by declaring Rangers to be a special case. WFC above says he'd be more comfortable with an appeal to WP:IAR to keep the article. IAR applies when the rule to be ignored stops us improving the encyclopedia. I'm further not convinced that the encyclopedia would be generally improved by invoking IAR to include this article, and I'm absolutely sure that the encyclopedia would not be improved by invoking IAR to declare Rangers players notable per se. Which brings us to WP:GNG.

  If the effort expended here in support of the article being kept because Rangers are a special case had been applied to adding all the presumed media coverage to Mr Macleod's article, then there's be no argument about his passing GNG. But it hasn't. The article's improved since its nomination here, but as already stated above, most of the sources just verify his appearance in various matches. Of the others, several are variations on his signing a new contract with the club and the others show that young players (including Mr Macleod) are getting a chance because the club are playing at a low level. I don't see that as meeting GNG, particularly in light of the definition of multiple sources (see explanatory note #3 at WP:GNG). If Mr Macleod's career continues as he hopes, then he's sure to get enough individual coverage to pass GNG in his own right, but I don't think he's there yet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of coming across as pedantic, my argument is that if things go the way they seem to be going, I would prefer an IAR deletion. The distinction is unimportant in the context of this article's future, but very important if we are talking about the standard of proof needed to determine notability. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 06:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. And it isn't pedantic to point out that I seemed not to have read what you wrote... Your remarks were clear enough when they first appeared: but I ignored my rules about not posting at bedtime once thinking became difficult, wrote "keep" instead of "delete", and then based an argument on what I'd written instead of on what you had. Sorry. Though the argument's still valid :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

My view on this is has it has been for six years. As an inclusionist I believe we set the bar for football notability way too high. If we are ever to encourage new editors (and the number of editors is falling) articles like this are just what we need. Try explaining to a new editor that Rangers are notable and watched by 50,000 and have their games televised but, no their players are not notable. My views are only in the interest of expanding WP with good, sourced articles and I have no love/hate for Mr Macleod or Rangers. Deleting articles whose sources don't quite meet GNG is not the way to expansion--Egghead06 (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe we set the bar for football notability in the wrong place: the concept of "fully professional league" is proven unsustainable. Though I tend towards including players who've had a career in "lesser" leagues rather than kids who've had five minutes in front of a big-club crowd. It bothers me that articles on players with a lengthy career in a league not considered fully professional is deleted unless it's approaching good article status, and it particularly bothers me that recently, players with several years worth of career including appearances in fully professional leagues are attracting delete !votes at AfD if the only sources available are in a relatively obscure foreign language. I think there's more damage done to the encyclopedia by deleting real articles on players with a career already than by deleting articles on kids who might have a career sometime in the future.

I know this isn't really the place to discuss discouraging new editors, but one thing that must be disheartening is when someone comes along and removes most of an article's content because it's unsourced, rather than doing a 2-minute search for sources themselves and/or explaining to the creator why that content needs sources and giving them time and encouragement to find some. There's very little that really needs ripping straight out on BLP grounds. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect, you all miss the point. The "fully professional leagues" rule is fine EXCEPT for EXCEPTIONAL cases. Rangers in the 4th tier is - to any informed observer - the definition of an exceptional case. Therefore, Wikipedia's inherent flexibility regarding guidelines and exceptions - should be utilised for a player who's a regular (12 out of 12) First Team player. Gefetane (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

First, the FPL rule is far from fine. There are top-level leagues throughout the world with massive press and TV coverage of both clubs and players but whose players' articles, even where the player has many appearances, are deleted without a murmur because those leagues are not proven fully professional (and because, quite understandably this being the English Wikipedia, there are fewer editors with the language skills to expand those articles to meet GNG). Second, with respect, we don't all miss the point: some of us just don't agree with it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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.