| Revision as of 08:41, 6 April 2008 editOtolemur crassicaudatus (talk | contribs)Rollbackers34,106 edits d← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:34, 6 April 2008 edit undoFirefly322 (talk | contribs)6,138 edits CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| *'''Delete''' -- not only does he fail ], he fails ] as we do not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article. ] (]) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' -- not only does he fail ], he fails ] as we do not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article. ] (]) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete:''' Fails ] and ]. No significant coverage in reliable source. ''']''' (]) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete:''' Fails ] and ]. No significant coverage in reliable source. ''']''' (]) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Note evidence suggests that both ''']''' and ''']''' made their votes merely in response to my proding of the article on ]. --] (]) 13:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:34, 6 April 2008
Jonathan Wheeldon
- Jonathan Wheeldon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod (no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — The individual clearly exists. There is no need for a player to play in a professional league; we have articles on loads of American college athletes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I clearly exist, yet there is no article on me. The highest level this guy has played at is the ninth level of English football, or the fourth division of Belgian football. Playing at that level is clearly not notable, and neither is the person given 46 Ghits. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that you exist means that an article about you is perfectly appropriate. "Notability" is irrelevant and wrong, as it is both totally arbitrary and utterly undefinable. Verifiable existence is the only relevant criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you disagree with policy, take it up somewhere else. As for your argument about the "loads of American college athletes" who have articles, I would say they should all be deleted too, as they have not competed at a professional level. – PeeJay 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your under the mistaken impression that WP:N is Policy, it is not! It is only a guidline. Exit2DOS2000 03:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why? What you fail to understand is that so-called "policy" is not descriptive or normative at all. We are not bound to abide by it. On Misplaced Pages, all "policy" is is a description of what has typically happened in the past. So you don't set out to "change policy"--you simply change what is actually being done, and then "policy" reflects that. What you are suggesting is backwards from the way it's supposed to work. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- We are not bound to abide by it. "We"? And yet, somehow, you feel compelled to demand that people follow your own personal criteria as if it somehow was more valid than anyone else's. The logical underpinning of your argument is that the editors can collectively decide what goes here or doesn't -- wrong in various ways, but let's leave that aside -- yet somehow you refuse to accept the decisions they actually make as valid if they don't match up with your...unique...interpretations. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Kurt's got the[REDACTED] spirit. And not just because he clearly gets WP:UCS and WP:IAR, but also because the recent idea of a professional is far too narrow a criteria to use as a test for an athelete's inclusion on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- We are not bound to abide by it. "We"? And yet, somehow, you feel compelled to demand that people follow your own personal criteria as if it somehow was more valid than anyone else's. The logical underpinning of your argument is that the editors can collectively decide what goes here or doesn't -- wrong in various ways, but let's leave that aside -- yet somehow you refuse to accept the decisions they actually make as valid if they don't match up with your...unique...interpretations. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you disagree with policy, take it up somewhere else. As for your argument about the "loads of American college athletes" who have articles, I would say they should all be deleted too, as they have not competed at a professional level. – PeeJay 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that you exist means that an article about you is perfectly appropriate. "Notability" is irrelevant and wrong, as it is both totally arbitrary and utterly undefinable. Verifiable existence is the only relevant criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I clearly exist, yet there is no article on me. The highest level this guy has played at is the ninth level of English football, or the fourth division of Belgian football. Playing at that level is clearly not notable, and neither is the person given 46 Ghits. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - The player obviously fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played a match as a professional footballer, and he has done nothing that would make him otherwise notable. – PeeJay 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article seems to have reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't a directory, it's an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Wheeldon has been noticed by the BBC, at least twice. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- not only does he fail WP:ATHLETE, he fails WP:BIO as we do not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article. Jfire (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. No significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note evidence suggests that both Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jfire made their votes merely in response to my proding of the article on Corruption in India. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)