Talk:Nathan Smith (footballer, born 1987)

Notts County match
As there seems to be a dispute over a paragraph in the article, I thought I should lay out my reasoning as to why I have removed it one again. In your message on my talk page you asked why I did not believe the incident was worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, my reasoning is as follows: Please reach a consensus in this discussion before reverting the removal of this passage. Thanks Ytfc23 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Although a source was provided for the paragraph it provides no mention of quote "during an ill-tempered match between Notts County and Yeovil at Meadow Lane, Smith pretended to be injured to pressure referee Stuart Attwell into sending off Gary Jones. He then escaped with a yellow card for a late, knee-high challenge on Michael Petrasso in the second half. To rub salt into the wounds of the home supporters, Smith provided a great assist for Yeovil's second, and winning, goal as the Glovers completed an unlikely comeback. For evidence supporting all of this paragraph, see the official match DVD" the source provided merely states "Gary Jones was dismissed for a challenge on defender Nathan Smith despite clearly winning the ball" so offers no mention of Smith's conduct and therefore the paragraph violates WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR
 * 2) As per a discussion on the talk page of Ashley Young, the paragraph is entirely negative and inappropriate for an encyclopaedic entry. See the biography of living persons policy and more specifically the sections on article tone and the repeating of gossip.
 * 3) Finally as an aside I feel the content is unencyclopedic as it has brought Wikipedia into disrepute with the edit being reported as part of a wider story on the online abuse Smith has been subjected to.


 * Wikipedia does not require quotes. It allows for journalistic comment. The Nottingham Post article did not provide further information because they only have a limited amount of space. Nothing that I wrote is factually incorrect.
 * Wikipedia is a source of information and is not limited to good news about people: I don't imagine that the page on Adolf Hitler only addresses his early career as an artist. You cannot use censorship to prevent the truth being revealed about one of your players who will probably leave Yeovil when they are relegated again this season.
 * Disrepute?! Good publicity more like. Wikipedia is to encourage free sharing of information. Had you and Mattythewhite not gone to such lengths to stifle free expression, the story may not have made those local papers. The online abuse reference was to Twitter users. At no point was my amendment to the Wikipedia page cited as abuse of Mr Smith. In any event, Mr Smith has been found to have cheated by the panel which reversed Mr Attwell's decision. His playacting is manifestly clear from the video footage, to which I referred in my amendment as the source of the information.
 * Consensus with you is impossible because you are biased and ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.68.144 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2014‎