Deletion of Lewis Macleod (footballer)

Comment: 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 &ndash; a far larger percentage than I believe don't merit full-blown articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: There is nothing beyond routine coverage of this player in any reliable sources, so he doesn't pass , and since the Scottish Third Division is not pro, his appearances in that division do not confer notability per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFOOTY)

Comment: per nom. Still fails , still fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NSPORT)

Comment: Rangers are a "big club"? . Playing for them (but nobody else in the league) gives you automatic notability? 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: fails  and . The deline of the speedy was wrong
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFOOTBALL)

Comment: fails the general  criteria as well as the football-specific notability criteria. Fails  as the only coverage the subject has received beyond Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources|standard tabloid fare is in routine match reports. The case for Rangers exceptionalism is not supported by the lack of reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSPORTS||WP:GNG)

Comment: This discussion has gotten way off topic, and I suggest we stop discussing if Rangers are a big club or if MacLeod passes , 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  yet, although he is close
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFOOTBALL||WP:GNG)

Comment: There's no argument about the subject failing  as it currently stands, and I'm not convinced that  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  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 .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 ). 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFOOTBALL||WP:LOCALCONSENSUS||WP:IAR||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Absurd to suggest player does not pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Still fails  and is a long way off passing . Not a huge difference between this and the original
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFOOTBALL)

Comment: 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.  says certain players are 'presumed notable'. It doesn't say others can't be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFOOTY)

Comment: 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 . But he patently passes , beyond simple match reports
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFOOTBALL||WP:GNG)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)