Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Roberts (footballer born 1986)


 * 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. While the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However upon inspection of the source provided in the article, of which there was only one, it was a trivial mention (just mentions he was the goaltender for at least a portion of a game with Rushden & Diamonds F.C. -- no critical commentary of how he played), hardly meets the requirements of WP:N, in that the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore we must fall back upon the subject-specific notability guideline, which the delete arguments clearly identify as this article does not pass. My decision therefore is delete.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dale Roberts (footballer born 1986)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Rushden & Diamonds now play in the Conference National, which is not fully professional, so appearances this season for Rushden do not establish notability. robwingfield «T•C» 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield «T•C» 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He is Forest's number 2 keeper and has occupied their bench. He has played 5 games for Rushden, a professional club. There is plenty of coverage mentioning him in third party reputable media (BBC site, Halifax press, Yorkshire evening post). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:FOOTY/Notability requires that the clubs professional status be confirmed by a Reliable source. I cant see this on the R&D article English   peasant  01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Ban  Ray  22:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep played in the Conference at a professional club, hence meet new WP:FOOTY notability criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wasn't aware that the WikiProject's notability criteria had been accepted by the project. Until this AfD, I would have said precisely the reverse.  Happy to be proven wrong, so could you let me know where that discussion has taken place?  robwingfield «T•C» 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - See WikiProject Football/Notability criteria 1. Peanut4 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm after the discussion which proves that the criteria have been accepted, not the criteria themselves. robwingfield «T•C» 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread your comment. The discussion is here. And confirmation Conference National players notable is here. Peanut4 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already seen the WikiProject discussion... I haven't seen where that's been accepted by the community. A number of requests were rejected at WP:DRV after that discussion because WP:FOOTY did not get the new criteria accepted by the wider community and added to WP:BIO.  I'm not trying to be difficult - I'd be very happy if they were accepted, but I'm not convinced they have been.  robwingfield «T•C» 07:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know they haven't been yet, so we have to stick with WP:BIO. John Hayestalk 12:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete obviously fails WP:BIO. It's possible he might pass WP:BIO, based on the comment above, but at the moment his notability isn't asserted by multiple independent reliable sources. John Hayestalk 12:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - never played at a high enough level. - fchd (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:Athlete at this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (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.