Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Bartlett


 * 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   delete. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ben Bartlett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. This individual fails WP:GNG as he has not been featured in any reliable third-party media. He also fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a competitive first-team match for a fully professional club, nor has he been the head coach for such a team in such a match. – PeeJay 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 21:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Added an article published in Soccer Coach International, which is a globally distributed Soccer Coaching Publication, http://soccercoachinginternational.com/sci_en/. Ben has been twice published here and this is an independent journal. The 2nd article proposes a previously unpublished concept of the soccer player as the syllabus, a shift in youth coaching from the previous approach of the syllabus being the same for all. The following educational articles support such an approach:

http://www.postgradolinguistica.ucv.cl/dev/documentos/0,680,Syllabus%20Design.pdf http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/1662/03.CHAPTER_3.pdf;jsessionid=60AF46566C80BEFA3D039C003D998B0C.tdx2?sequence=4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georg3Hartman (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These are not an indicator of notability. There are a great many academically published writers who do not have articles on Wikipedia, and with good reason. – PeeJay 07:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was proposed as evidence of reliable third party media with a concept that is articulated, within other education environments, as having value. Appreciate that not all published writers have a wikipedia article. User:Georg3Hartman —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not third-party media if it's written by himself. Plus, any articles he's written won't be about him, which is what we require to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. If others have written about Bartlett and his work, that's fine, but not until then. – PeeJay 23:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first article was written about Ben by an educationalist - http://www.integritysoccer.co.uk/uploads/3/0/6/0/3060532/coaching_behaviours.pdf - this was published in Soccer Coaching International - http://soccercoachinginternational.com/sci_en/ - a formally published soccer coaching journal.User:Georg3Hartman —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A small article in a niche football coaching magazine doesn't really count, tbh. – PeeJay 15:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Coach fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is 14 pages in length and achieved the requirements suggested around articles written about Ben. In respect of being niche; the publication covers all areas of coaching the game of soccer and has global distribution. User:Georg3Hartman User talk:Georg3Hartman 18:25, 26th March 2013 (UTC)


 * He has also managed in The FA Women's Premier League (Chelsea FC & Colchester United FC); which, whilst not fully professional is within the Wikipedia Top Level Leagues proposed as required for notability. User:Georg3Hartman User talk: Georg3Hartman 18:32, 26th March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:35, 27 March 2013 (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.