Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Anaclet (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep per FA Cup appearance (19 minutes of fame is 4 more than to be expected)

Eddie Anaclet
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

He has never played in a fully professional competition so his notability is in question Skitzo (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Skitzo (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The consensus in the last discussion is that he wasn't notable enough, and I don't see what has changed since then. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed in a fully professional league. Bettia   (rawr!)  12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bettia. GiantSnowman 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep following new info below that he has played in the FA Cup. GiantSnowman 14:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Having played in live televised games (BBC and Sky)(Leicester 3-0 Stevenage ; Oxford 0-0 Southend) and a few other Conference games on Sky. Having a full professional contract in a Semi-pro league. Having established notability in Conference football with Oxford and Stevenage. Playing in the FA cup which is a fairly good professional competition. Govvy (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the F.A. Cup isn't fully professional and simply playing in a televised game doesn't bestow notability, had he done something to draw attention on himself in those games maybe you would have an argument, the fact still remains he's never played in a fully pro competition. Skitzo (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep He has played in the FA Cup for Chester, a League Two team at the time. This therefore means he passes WP:FOOTYN. --Eastlygod (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - he played for Chester in the FA Cup when they were a league team (i.e. a team in a fully professional league). WikiGull (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, however he only played against Halifax Town - who were in the Conference at the time. Thus, not being in a game competed by both teams from fully-pro league. --Jimbo[online] 02:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that general consensus was that playing for a Football League team in the FA Cup was sufficient, irrespective of who the opposition was......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my view on it as well. If this is deleted, we will at some point have the anomaly of a page on Chester City's 2004-05 season with Anaclet's name in black/red despite being listed as having played a first team game for them when they were a league side. WikiGull (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He only played 19 minutes in that FA Cup match. Is that really enough to automatically make him notable? Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, yes. If a player has played at all for the first team in a competitive game etc, then they are of interest. This then allows anyone (and not just those of us that edit footy articles) to see what happened to him after playing for Chester etc and allows a complete record. I really don't understand the deletion frenzy approach in these cases - he is ok by the rules as I understand them and adds to the information on wikipedia that may be of use to someone. Surely that's what wikipedia is supposed to be about isn't it?WikiGull (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep a first-team match for a FL team is enough, regardless of who it's against. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per FA Cup appearance. matt91486 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (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.