Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Ashmore

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ashmore

[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, fails WP:NBIO OGLV (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OGLV (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelessly fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found below, although I would advise against suggesting articles in rags like The Sun and The Daily Mail makes somebody notable... Giant Snowman 08:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass WP:BASIC for me as subject has received WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reputable, inter/national sources, including the BBC, The Times, Daily Mail, TalkSport, The Sun, etc. See the following sources: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. This, mind you, is all in addition to more routine coverage of signings, game reports, etc. which he's mentioned in as well. GauchoDude (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - someone who receives significant coverage from BBC and The Times is notable enough for an article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BASIC with the coverage mentioned by GauchoDude.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. BBC and Times articles are just a crime victim discussing the crimes. GauchoDude's other sources are either unreliable or fail to provide significant coverage of Ashmore. Dougal18 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this evaluation of the sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hasn't played in the EFL, notability not met. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 20:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with the sources provided by GauchoDude. Alvaldi (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He isn't notable for his football career. A victim of crime needs to pass WP:CRIME and he fails that. Dougal18 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough coverage of the abuse he's received to, along with an extensive non-league career, justify keeping this article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I really struggle with this one. The reason why he got coverage wasn't because of his football career. Reliable sources do cover his actual footballing career, but as clear run of the mill coverage either by the club or as a transfer blurb, ie the GNG would not be there if not for the flurry of news coverage. If NFOOTY were still in force we wouldn't assume he had GNG-qualifying coverage. So the question is whether he's notable for the flurry of press coverage he did receive. I'm more comfortable keeping because the coverage of him wasn't because of one specific incident but was spread over years by multiple reliable publications, but can understand both sides here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear NFOOTY isn't met. I'm not finding consensus on GNG. Nor has the NCRIME aspect been discussed sufficiently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a bunch of purely football related sources to the article [1][2][3][4][5][6] Alvaldi (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this one is clearly more than routine sports reporting. This, combined with the BBC and Talksport coverage, make this a clear and obvious GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NSPORT: Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. Ashmore passes the WP:GNG by the abundance of WP:SIGCOV sources identified above. gidonb (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per sources listed above and in the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - just about passes the GNG with enough sources. There's enough coverage there to pass even if he isn't especially notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough citations to satisfy WP:NSPORT. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2022 (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.